This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

College basketball is broken and needs to be fixed.

Let's rephrase that.

There are measures that can be taken to make the college game better. Even in March. Especially in March. Overall, interest is down, ratings are down, the game is down.

Here are a few suggestions:

Shorten the shot clock • Thirty-five seconds is archaic and one of the reasons so many college games grind into an unwatchable bore. There are teams that try to gain advantage by limiting the number of possessions — and hurt more skilled and athletic teams — by slowing the pace. Some call that heady, strategic basketball. Dribbling and passing the ball around for 25 seconds before initiating a play isn't heady, it's brain numbing.

Even college coaches, many of them noted control freaks, are in favor of helping the game by speeding it up. In a recent ESPN poll of 460 Division I coaches, nearly 70 percent said they want a shorter clock: 59 percent said they would prefer the clock be set at 30 seconds and 10 percent want it at 24, the same as the NBA and international play.

Officiate the game differently • Basketball is a difficult thing to referee. And college refs prove that on a nightly basis. It requires lasers for eyes. But more importantly, it requires good judgment. The refs supposedly have tried to free up the game, but it appears that effort simply morphed back into the mess it was previously, facilitating bumping and hip checking and impeding the movement of offensive players. The charge-block scenario also must change. Far too often, the defender is given leeway in establishing position, and that's unfortunate. NBA officiating isn't perfect, but it is far better than what is regularly seen in the college game.

Reduce the number of timeouts • In games that are televised, the number of timeouts is so ridiculous, it's almost laughable. Money talks. There are eight TV stoppages per game, in addition to the five timeouts awarded to each team. As a result, games, particularly at the end, get sliced and diced — yes, it slices and dices and what's more, you'll get two Ginsu knives for the price of one — to the point where any rhythm the game may have established is lost.

Just for misery's sake, next time you watch an NCAA Tournament game, time how long it takes to play out the final three minutes. You won't see much basketball, but you will be fully informed on tires, cars, shaving gel and blades, financial planning options, deodorant, hair-loss strategies, and beer.

Get rid of conference tournaments • They started as kind of a cute, quaint idea out of the ACC. But the widespread growth of league playoffs has rendered the regular season almost meaningless, not just providing a do-over for nearly every conference team, but, in some cases in some leagues, placing more emphasis on three days in early March than three months worth of play in the run-up. It's like cashing in an entire season's work and getting a few thrills in return.

Every year, in some smaller league somewhere, a team that finishes league play at 16-2 is bumped off by a 9-9 outfit that gets the bid. Even in leagues that earn multiple invitations to the NCAA Tournament, the chance at redemption in the conference tourney waters down all that has gone on before. These tournaments are fun, and they make money for the various conferences, but, in a competitive sense, are they worth it? No.

Do something about the one-and-done plague • But what? Beats me. This is the toughest matter of all. Not because it would be that difficult to alter via legislation, rather because of the more pressing question: Is it right? Having the college game's best players stick around longer than a single season, during which they may or may not be, you know, actual college students, attending class and all, would improve both the game's quality and excitement. Leagues other than the NBA have stipulations in place that require athletes who enroll in college to complete more than one year. That's understood.

But, if an individual employer (a team owner) is willing to pay a young player, even an underdeveloped one, millions of dollars to secure his services, is it un-American to prevent that player from making that substantial living? Yeah, there are age requirements for certain vital occupations, but we're talking about basketball here.

The college game, at least at the top levels, would be greatly advanced if the most gifted players were forced to stay in school longer. The games would be better, the ratings would be better, the schools would make more money, the NCAA would make more money. The players? They would make less money. Not sure that that's the best move.

GORDON MONSON hosts "The Big Show" with Spence Checketts weekdays from 3-7 p.m. on 97.5 FM and 1280 AM The Zone. Twitter: @GordonMonson.