High school vs. club team

If I took 100 random high school basketball coaches and 100 random 18-under AAU coaches, who do think teaches the game better, sets up practices better and trains the players better?

 

An interesting question: If AAU becomes the norm for the better level competition across the board for team sports (maybe even with track and XC, bowling, etc.), when do we as journalists start covering the local team in these leagues instead of the high school team that could become the place that lacks the talent?

 

There will always be high school football and high school basketball.

You might get the springs off, though.

 

Hockey costs more than football on a per-player basis (ice time, $200 sticks, $500 skates). Somehow parents find money to put their kids on club teams in hockey.

The parents will find the money. Well, some will, anyway.

 

I'll bite. Who?

 

For chest passes and the proper technique setting picks, HS coaches. For anyone who aspires to average more than 12 ppg, AAU.

 

Never.

The only reason to cover HS sports is widespread community interest based on school identification.

In "Hoosiers" and "Friday Night Lights" the stands are packed because a lot of the townspeople want to get out and see the teams representing Hickory High or Odessa Permian.

In club sports the only interest is in the parents of the players themselves. If you don't have a kid on the team, nobody gives a shit. (Or should.)

I've been at club soccer games between some of the better teams in the state -- there are as many players on the field as there are fans on the sidelines. I've been at AAU basketball games with half-a-dozen all-staters on the court. 50 people in the stands at most. Parents, street agents and college coaches.

 

Frank Burlison regularly covers the basketball club circuit for the Long Beach Press-Telegram. I think he knows a thing or two about prep sports.

Fox Sports Net in Los Angeles televised a girls club volleyball championship this past Saturday.

 

Well, then, here's the sad, ultimate question.

If travel ball does eventually dwarf high school sports, and high school ball becomes nothing, and nobody reads about travel ball (and I do think you're right about that), what DO you cover then? Do you completely drop coverage of the 18-and-under group?

 

What motivates an AAU coach? Why are they there?

I would have no problem with my kid playing AAU someday, but they will be playing high school ball if they are good enough.

Also, let's say your kid is playing AAU and is starting. Are you always waiting for that team to recruit a better player than your kid, and now your kid sits?

I coached a player who wound up playing for a top DC area AAU team, but had a falling out with that coach or something happened where the player was not starting anymore or left the team. I cannot remember. Well this player was a big-time DI talent who all of a sudden did not have an offer from Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, VCU, JMU, nothing... They were litterally basketball unemployed, and this player was very strong academically.

They wound up signing at the last second with a DI southern school (four states away), and as a sophomore was the team's leading scorer last season.

So I look at AAU with a very skeptical eye.

 

Burlison's coverage is geared toward his core college basketball market, though, right? Covering clubs would make sense because he would be concentrating on players who would eventually be of interest to his readers. High school coverage as a whole is a different story -- nobody is going to root for the L.A. Ballers AAU team the way they root for Crenshaw. I don't know whether that will change, but history gives the high schools an awfully big head start in the area of community interest.

 

Shit, I forget to set my DVR.

No high school sports, outside of state high school championships, should ever be watched on TV.