Kentucky’s Mark Pope Wants NCAA to Let Teams Advance the Ball After Timeouts to Enhance Late-Game Drama and Strategy

When it comes to the evolving landscape of college basketball, there’s always room for debate about rule changes that could improve the sport. One of the more intriguing proposals making waves recently came not from a conference office or NCAA committee, but from a head coach in the heart of basketball country—Lexington, Kentucky. Mark Pope, the newly installed head coach of the Kentucky Wildcats, voiced a simple but potentially transformative idea: allowing teams to advance the ball after timeouts in late-game situations.

“The change that I would really like to make, that I’d be super excited about?” Pope asked rhetorically during a recent media availability. “I’d like to be able to advance the ball out of timeouts. I know it slows down the game, but it makes the game so much more interesting when, with 2.5 seconds or 1.5 seconds left, if you don’t have to go full-court, but you can advance it. You have a chance to get elite-level shots and decision-making.”

This seemingly small tweak could have massive ramifications. Under current NCAA rules, when a team calls a timeout late in the game—say, after the opponent scores a go-ahead basket—the inbounds play must start from under the basket, even if only a second or two remain. That often means a desperate heave rather than a coordinated play. Contrast that with the NBA or WNBA, where the team inbounding after a timeout can start from the frontcourt. It opens the door to last-second heroics, exciting finishes, and strategic mastery that fans and players alike cherish.

Pope’s suggestion isn’t entirely new, but coming from the head coach of one of the most prestigious programs in college basketball, it’s more than idle chatter. Kentucky isn’t just a team; it’s a national institution. When its head coach speaks, people listen. And Pope, who’s known as a creative basketball mind and strong communicator, has tapped into a change that could genuinely elevate the entertainment value of the sport.

The beauty of advancing the ball lies in its blend of drama and strategy. With just a couple of seconds left, a team now has the opportunity to run a set play—possibly a quick back screen, a fade to the corner, or even a lob—rather than launching a prayer from 75 feet. It’s a better way to reward coaches for preparation and players for execution.

For years, fans of the college game have lamented the inability of NCAA teams to mirror the excitement seen in pro-level buzzer-beaters. Every March, the nation becomes obsessed with “March Madness,” tuning in for those one-possession games that come down to the wire. Imagine how many more of those contests could have ended with a clean look rather than a hopeless heave if teams had been able to advance the ball.

There’s also the entertainment factor. Sports are, at their core, a form of storytelling. The tension of a final play, the hope of a comeback, and the sudden jubilation or heartbreak of the result are all part of the narrative. Advancing the ball after a timeout adds a new chapter to that story—a final twist that can keep fans glued to their seats and amplify the spectacle.

Of course, critics might say that this rule change would slow down the pace of play, contradicting the general movement in sports toward faster, more fluid action. Pope anticipates this pushback, admitting, “I know it slows down the game.” But he counters that what it adds in terms of strategic complexity and watchability more than makes up for it. It’s not about inserting more dead time into the game; it’s about making the most out of the moments that already exist.

And he’s not wrong. Late-game timeouts already exist. Coaches use them to draw up plays, settle their players, or freeze free-throw shooters. Allowing ball advancement wouldn’t increase the number of timeouts—it would simply alter what teams are allowed to do once those timeouts are called. The clock still ticks the same, the stakes are just raised.

There’s also precedent for this change beyond the NBA and WNBA. High school basketball in some states and international basketball under FIBA rules have versions of this regulation. It’s not as if the mechanism is foreign to the game. It’s a matter of translating it to the college level, where it could thrive, particularly in a tournament like March Madness that thrives on late-game chaos and memorable finishes.

The implementation would require some logistical consideration. Would the rule apply only in the final two minutes? Only after made baskets or turnovers? Would teams be required to signal their intent to advance the ball? These are questions for the NCAA’s rules committee to explore, but they are not insurmountable. In fact, they’ve been solved before in other leagues.

From a coaching standpoint, the change offers an additional layer of preparation. Coaches pride themselves on their end-of-game sets. With this rule, they’d have one more weapon in their arsenal. It’s not about making life easier; it’s about making it more competitive. With better field position after a timeout, more coaches would be judged on their ability to draw up plays that deliver a quality shot. More players would be asked to execute in clutch situations, and more games could be decided by brilliant design rather than sheer luck.

There’s also the recruiting angle. Players want to play in systems that prepare them for the next level. The more college basketball mirrors professional standards, the more it benefits those looking to make that jump. Allowing ball advancement would bring the college game one step closer to that ideal, without compromising its uniqueness.

For Pope, the suggestion reflects a broader vision for Kentucky’s program under his leadership. He wants to modernize, innovate, and push boundaries. He’s not shying away from change—he’s embracing it. That boldness could resonate in a sport that often clings to tradition but is always seeking the next big idea.

He’s also tapping into something very human about sports: the desire for one more chance, one more play, one more moment to win it all. Fans dream of their team hitting a game-winner at the buzzer. Players practice those shots in empty gyms for hours. Coaches obsess over the perfect alignment, the ideal match-up. This rule change doesn’t guarantee those dreams will come true, but it does make them more attainable.

Some might argue that part of the beauty of college basketball is its unpredictability and rawness—the fact that not every game ends like a Hollywood script. But enhancing the opportunity for better endings doesn’t mean scripting the outcome. It simply gives the story a better stage.

Pope’s idea is simple, and maybe that’s what makes it powerful. It doesn’t require new technology or a major overhaul of the rulebook. It’s a change rooted in the spirit of competition, in the thrill of the game, and in the pursuit of excellence. And coming from someone tasked with upholding the legacy of one of college basketball’s greatest programs, it carries weight.

In the end, it’s about possibilities. The possibility of a cleaner shot. The possibility of a smarter decision. The possibility of one more unforgettable moment.

Mark Pope understands that, and he’s not just coaching for wins. He’s coaching for moments—those flashes of brilliance that define seasons and careers and live forever in highlight reels and fan memories. Advancing the ball after timeouts could help create more of those moments.

And for that reason alone, it’s an idea worth taking seriously.