Basketball’s aforementioned flaws are directly attributable to the influence of the game clock. So, it begs the question: does basketball really need a game clock? In a word, sorta.

Obviously, not all sports’ competition durations are governed strictly by time. Numerous different formats exist, including:

Races: auto racing, most swimming and running events, etc.

Completion of a Predetermined Number of Rounds/Turns: bowling, gymnastics, diving, field events in track and field, etc.

Governed Generally by Time, but might end by a particular accomplishment at any moment: boxing, mixed martial arts, wrestling, etc.

Accumulation of Accomplishments: baseball/softball, golf (arguably), tennis, volleyball, etc.

Governed Strictly by Time: basketball, field hockey, football, ice hockey, soccer, etc.

Sports on that final list must depend on a clock because accomplishments (whether it’s goals or general scoring possessions) are accumulated relatively sporadically. That is, except for basketball.

In the sport’s early decades, baskets were awfully hard to come by, which aligned the sport with others governed strictly by time, but for about the last century or so, baskets have been scored with an ease and frequency that would seem to align the sport more closely with those that allow accomplishments to govern their duration. Instead, basketball clings to its clock, and enables all of the drawbacks discussed above.

Game clocks do have a solid purpose in today’s sporting environment: relative conformity of game length for TV. Until very recently, we could be sure that NBA games would adhere to a 150-minute window of actual time, and that high-level NCAA games would fit into a 120-minute window. Conversely, baseball’s game length variability provides an easy target for detractors, and the length of a tennis match is difficult to predict within the hour. If basketball were to abandon its game clock completely (and simply play first-to-x-points-wins), we would see some games end in less than 90 minutes, and others last well beyond three hours. That won’t work.

But can basketball have the best of both worlds, in a way no other sport can? What if basketball employed a game clock for most of each game, to reap its primary benefit (reducing game length variability), but abandoned the clock just before it causes quality, style, and pace of play to suffer (using actual baskets/points as the basis for duration instead). The possible combinations are endless, but the idea would be for each game to include a majority timed portion, followed by an untimed final act.

Hypothetically, for NCAA basketball:

At least 36 minutes of timed play (a complete, 20-minute timed first half, and at least 16 minutes of timed play in the second half)

When the cutoff is reached, a target score would be set (equal to the leading team’s score plus seven)

Play would then resume, without a game clock, until one team matches or exceeds the target score

For example, consider the 2014 NCAA Championship game. Suppose UConn called a timeout to end the timed portion of the game, holding a 56–52 lead. At this juncture, the game clock would be abandoned, and the first team to reach 63 points would be declared the national champion.

Similar rules could be implemented for the NBA. Imagine Game 5 of the 2014 NBA Finals, where San Antonio held a 98–80 lead with around three minutes left. In that case, the first team to reach 105 points would win that game (and if it was the Spurs, they would be declared NBA champions.)