The men's basketball rules committee, led by chairman and Belmont coach Rick Byrd, announced proposed changes on Friday that are designed to improve the pace, flow and overall quality of the game. Fran Fraschilla and Seth Greenberg weighed in with their opinions on the new rules, which will likely be rubber-stamped by the NCAA in time for the 2015-16 season:

Will the proposed 30-second shot clock improve the game?

Seth Greenberg: I don’t think it will have the impact that everyone thinks. Yes, it will add possessions. The bigger question is how coaches are going to adapt. Are they going to flow into offense? Are they going to transition and flow right into their offense, and then stay within their offensive concepts to score in a shot clock situation? If not, it’s just going to be the same thing we’ve been watching but with five fewer seconds. It’s going to be: transition, pull it out, run a set, pull it out and a seven-second play. If that’s the result, you’re going to see a lot of bad shots in my opinion. You’ll have more possessions and more bad shots.

I’m not a big believer in the 24-second clock. Yes, it works in Europe, but they don’t guard like they guard here. It’s just the way it is. I watch the NBA and those guys make shots, and the game still gets ugly. We don’t have those types of shot-makers in our game. That rule in itself, I don’t think, will have as great of an impact in terms of scoring as I think people perceive it to be.

Fran Fraschilla: I like the rule and now I hope that coaches adapt in this particular way … I hope they get way more creative on the offensive end than I see during the season. I already know that we’re going to see more zones, more pressure and, to me, that means I’m going to work on my zone offense as a coach from day one. I’m going to adapt to the various defensive changes that will come out because of this new rule. I’m also going to work on, as Seth calls it, my “seven-second offense.”

If I were coaching I would spend plenty of time on things that are going to happen a lot because of this rule change. I would also simply say, as I watch college basketball throughout the year, that 70 percent of the offensive stuff I see run is all the same. It’s easy to guard. I’m hoping that coaches will play a little faster, get into their offense a little quicker and have a little more ball movement in their offense and then have a semblance of what to do when the clock goes low. You have to have an organized game plan for the new shot clock.

There were a few timeout-related changes ...

• Coaches will no longer be able to call a timeout from the bench during live play

• Any timeout called within 30 seconds of a media timeout will serve as the media timeout

• Teams will receive one fewer timeout in the second half of games

... how will these changes affect play?

Fraschilla: I think it will speed the game up. I think it will shorten the game, which fans are looking for. It will also put more of a premium on being more prepared in practice. It gets back to what I said earlier -- if practice is about preparing your team how to play, then it makes sense to me that you can prepare your team to play in game situations without always having to look at the coach. I like all of the rule changes, and I can’t wait to hear what Seth has to say about them because his brother coaches in Europe with FIBA rules.

The only thing I don’t like about the timeout rules is ... I get why the coach won’t call timeout during the live action, but why would you let the player call timeout? The coach theoretically can just tell a player on the court to call a timeout and it basically accomplishes the same objective. I would have liked to have seen no timeouts during live ball action. Players have to think for themselves on the floor.

Greenberg: First of all, I’m happy that timeouts within 30 seconds of a media timeout will become just one stoppage. We need to improve the pace of play. If we improve the pace of play, the flow of the game will improve. That’s important.

You’re much more familiar with the FIBA rules, Fran, but I do like to give the players more ownership in the game. Put that decision-making in their hands -- time and score, when or when not to call a timeout, recognizing advantage/disadvantage in late-game situations. Coach your players in practice to think the game. That will give them greater ownership and a better understanding of what their coaches are trying to do.

I’m just happy we’re eliminating a timeout and I’m happy that we are eliminating a timeout closest to a media timeout. Those things are good for the pace of the game which, in the long run, will be a positive for the sport.

Proposed changes include adjusting rules on the perimeter to lessen physical play. Do you agree with this?

Greenberg: Only if they officiate it. Fran and I were sitting at the NBA draft combine, and I got a text from an official that said “next year we are going to officiate the rules. Early in the season you’ll see 70 free throws.” Coaches are going to have to adjust, players are going to have to adjust and the officials will need to be consistent. If that happens, yes the “freedom of movement” that we talk about every year will be a good thing. Until it’s applied consistently throughout the season, it’s probably going to be painful. If they stick with it, everyone will adjust. That’s my gut feeling.

Fraschilla: That’s the one area of the rule changes in which it’s up to the officials to officiate that rule. There is too much contact in the game, and there is less flow than ever. Quite frankly, two seasons ago, in the first half of the year we were headed in the right direction. Scoring was going up, it seemed like. There was less contact. There were more whistles early on. But it took the NBA a couple of years to get the hand-check and physicality out of the game -- at least on the perimeter. Good officials will at least adjudicate the rules efficiently. I felt they slipped over the past season, and I hope they get back to allowing more cutting, freedom of movement and flow to the game. All of these rule changes seem go to hand in hand with what we are all trying to accomplish: a more fun and watchable college basketball game not just in March, but during the entire season.

What are your thoughts on a larger restricted area (four feet vs. three feet) and penalties for flopping?

Fraschilla: I saw just a little in the postseason NIT when we experimented with the larger restricted area. And while it wasn’t that noticeable, as I think back on it there were fewer collisions at the rim. Anything to eliminate that secondary defender from just throwing his body at an oncoming driver, with the idea of picking up a charge, is great for the game.

I wouldn’t care if they moved the arc out another foot than they’ve done because while the charge is a good defensive play, it was getting too easy for defenses to be able to set their defense for that. I hope it will help eliminate a lot of the contact that we’ve seen at the rim in recent years. I’m in favor of that. It’s worth seeing if over the next two years it’s good for the game.

Greenberg: It’s going to change your coaching philosophy. The further your bigs have to step up to take a charge or contest, the further that the weakside defender has to seal down. So you’re either going to get something at the rim or a kickout for 3 because it will be 2-on-1 if you get in the lane and force the big to help up. The backside defender will be forced to make a longer rotation to seal down on the big. I think it will be interesting. If teams step up early, it will create situations for the ball handler to make good decisions.

Fran, you and I always talk about special situations. Having only 10 seconds in the backcourt is going to cause a lot of coaching. Now, when you only have that time and are forced to use a timeout, you have to figure out how to advance the basketball in a short period of time. It’s different. It’s definitely something that you’ll have to get used to. Guys will have to play more 5-on-5 and be in more game situations.

Fraschilla: I’m always in favor of preparing your team in practice for all of those special situations. My goal was always to prepare my team so if for some reason I wasn’t there, that they knew exactly how to handle a situation. For example, getting it over half court in the four remaining seconds after a timeout. I’m talking about all of the things that just pop up, Seth, where you don’t have time to grab a clipboard and write it out. I was always in the Dean Smith/Morgan Wootten school of preparing your team in practice in case things popped up in a game. That’s the fun part of coaching.

What rule change do you wish was made that wasn’t?

Fraschilla: I never thought I’d say this but I’d love to see the ball advanced in the last two minutes on a timeout the full length of the court like you can in the NBA. It would bring in the late-game, last-second shot to the game. FIBA has followed the NBA’s lead and that’s something college basketball needs to think about in the future. To me, anything that brings buzzer-beater-type excitement to the game would be fun. I say that as a purist, so I wonder if my purist coaching buddy feels the same way.

Greenberg: I actually do. It would put so much coaching into the game. Just think about the endings -- we see all of these endings in the NBA because you can advance the basketball, and then once again, special situations come into play. Now all of a sudden you have to have a lot of different ways to score. In 1.5 seconds you can score from midcourt, but not from the full length of the court. It presents a different strategy into the game, and I’m 100 percent in agreement that that would be great for college basketball.