The game times, they are increasing

Will this trend ever stop?

It’s been well-documented that college hoops is in a pretty good place, at least in terms of the on-court product. This season will feature more points per possession than ever in an era where foul calls are near historic lows. It’s always been a fun game to watch, but it’s more fun than ever.

The things that get complained about most - conference realignment and roster changes - are actually fine, I think! I’d make the case that realignment has made this season more interesting. We have new matchups, while retaining most of the traditional ones. Now we get rivalries like Texas-Texas A&M and BYU-Utah twice in a season. We get Iowa State-Arizona in January and UCLA-Michigan State in February. Sure, that comes with Arizona-UCF or SMU-Boston College at some point during the season, but is that any worse than the 247th meeting between Arizona and Oregon State? I don’t think so.

Player movement is out of control, but I’d prefer more freedom to the system we had 20 years ago. If we can find a way to limit player movement a bit, I’m for it. A little more roster stability is better for the humans involved. But I don’t want it under draconian regulations that force a player to sit a season in the prime of their developmental years. And I like seeing guys such as Chaz Lanier and Zeke Mayo get a chance on the big stage. After overachieving at a lower level, they deserve it.

The biggest problem left in college hoops is its end game. How much of a problem is a matter of taste. But for the past six seasons, I’ve been tracking game length and if you think games are getting longer, you’re correct. This is the average game length for regular-season power-conference games (non-overtime) over that time:

2020 1:59:38
2021 1:58:49
2022 2:00:33
2023 2:01:03
2024 2:02:21
2025 2:04:35

As of Monday, average game time is up 2 minutes and 14 seconds over last season. That isn’t exactly significant in the grand scheme of life but it’s possibly the longest games have ever been. Because last year, game times were up 1:18 over 2023, and game times for 2023 were up 30 seconds over 2022, and game times for 2022 were up 1:44 over 2021. It’s officially a trend. Game times are up nearly six minutes since 2021.

It’s worth pointing out that this data is not official. I have some code that monitors live scoreboards to get the start and finish times for games from certain conferences. It successfully records game length for hundreds of games over the course of a season, and random checks against game video indicate the estimates of game time are close if not precisely accurate to the minute in some cases.¹

Over a two-hour experience, six minutes doesn’t seem like big deal. One way it matters if your favorite TV sports network is showing games at two hour intervals (which almost all networks do). It’s become increasingly likely that you’ll have to find the start of the game you really want to watch on something like ESPN Deportes Chile - Atacama Regional Feed.

The other way it matters is that one can assume that those six minutes are not evenly spread out over the course of those two hours. They’re backloaded into what should be the most exciting part of the game.

In 2020, during a more innocent time when the average game length was under two hours, I wrote a piece for the New York Times² about what causes delays in games based on a regression using play-by-play data. Not surprisingly, timeouts and trips to the monitor produced big delays.

Before I get into a rant about reviews, I have to concede that the additional six minutes is probably not entirely due to reviews. Delays from reviews seem to be getting worse, but they’ve been bad for a while. There may also be a contribution from more subtle things like the new tradition of free throw huddles towards the end of games occurring on the sideline with the coach instead of in the lane.

My data also indicates that ESPN broadcasts in particular have ballooned (an average of 2:08 this season) and it’s possible the network has bloated game length in some way. However, manually timing commercial breaks is where I draw the line for research.

Clearly, though, reviews are the main culprit. More gets added to the list of reviewable plays with every rules update. For instance, it’s absolutely insane to retroactively review goaltending calls. The offensive team rebounds about half of all blocked shots, but when a goaltending call is overturned, it’s assumed the defensive team would have gained possession in all cases. It’s an example of how trying to get every call right is actually impossible. It sounds noble to strive for, but it’s not something you can legislate into existence due to the free-flowing nature of the game.

The single easiest fix to fight the increase in game length is to adopt the NBA system where out of bounds reviews can only be initiated by a coach’s challenge. Currently, coaches and players effectively have unlimited challenges. Any of them can twirl their finger in the last two minutes and officials are obligated to go to the monitor. Even the most obvious calls can trigger a lengthy viewing party for the officials.

Unfortunately, there’s a custom among the college hoops’ vanguard that adopting an idea from the NBA is a sign of weakness. Therefore, we must wait years (three-point line, charge circle) or decades (shot clock) or possibly generations (quarters) to implement useful ideas. Not all NBA innovations are great but a coach’s challenge system for out of bounds calls would make the end-game quite a bit more watchable. If you think a call is obviously wrong, then risk a timeout to challenge it. Otherwise, keep playing.

I’m a bit pessimistic about whether there’s serious interest in solving this problem, but some good news was announced in June:

Last month, the Men's Basketball Rules Committee forwarded an experimental rule for the 2025 NIT that would allow a coach to appeal out-of-bounds calls for video replay review in the last two minutes of games, pending approval from the NIT Board.

The experimental rule would eliminate the official's voluntary ability to review out-of-bounds calls on the floor in the last two minutes of the game.

I’d just let the coaches have the ability to challenge over the full game - it doesn’t cost you any time and it would make the end game go faster if they foolishly waste their challenges early. But this is progress.

I’d also make stuff like fouls challengeable as well. A star player getting into foul trouble over a bogus call is more consequential on an outcome than so many reviews we see. Throw stuff like goaltending in there, too. If it’s so obviously wrong, then the coach can challenge it immediately (and we’d go to the possession arrow if successful).

Maybe the tide of public opinion is turning. A majority of teams in Norway’s premier soccer league voted to eliminate the use of VAR. This came after a July contest where fans threw fish cakes on the field as a protest. There has been push back in Sweden as well.

I would not advocate that college basketball fans throw fish cakes on the court, but also it feels like the only thing that would make an impact, so follow your heart. Because right now the overwhelming vibe from people involved with college basketball is that “we have to get every call right” regardless of how that affects watchability. And as long as that is your belief, there is no limit to the amount of things that should be reviewed or the amount of time needed to review them.

And thus, like our universe, replay is an ever-expanding entity. It is believed the universe will expand forever due to the presence of dark energy. Similarly, scientists believe replay will expand forever, due to the dark energy of basketball people who believe that every review on the most minor of matters is absolutely necessary. Of course, some replay is necessary, but it’s long past time to consider whether many of these reviews are needed.

1. Also, I’m not aware of anyone in the universe who publishes such data, so if you use it, a little credit is always appreciated.

2. Well, I wrote it for the Athletic before it was acquired by the New York Times. But now all of my pieces are archived at Times. So I claim to have had a Times byline in the same way that Jason Kidd can claim to be an ACC legend.