The Problems with AAU

AAU is the catch-all for any non-scholastic sponsored basketball competition in the United States, although many tournaments and teams are not affiliated with AAU. Just as AAU is used ubiquitously to describe any non-scholastic competition, AAU fulfills almost every purpose: It can be anything to someone. The general purposelessness is its biggest problem, at least from a marketing standpoint (referee abuse, parent fights, overpriced entrance fees, and more are the biggest actual problems).

Similarly, people discuss youth basketball without defining age groups. For some, youth basketball is any pre-college basketball; for others, it is pre-high school; for others, pre-teenagers. Describing the objectives and goals for an entire sport without differentiating between these different age groups is problematic. For my purposes, youth basketball will refer to pre-high school basketball or generally 14 years old and younger.

AAU dominates youth basketball in most areas. Other organizations such as YMCA, Parks and Recreation Leagues, NJB, and Jr. NBA exist, but AAU tournaments tend to dominate.

AAU is not bad, in and of itself. Children need opportunities to play. I did not join a basketball team until fifth grade, which is when my school offered scholastic sports. The local parks and recreation league started around the same age, possibly fourth grade. We played 20 games with my scholastic league. The parks and recreation league played eight games I believe, but it may have varied by annual signups. AAU may not be perfect, but I would have loved to play more than 20 games, and eight games barely seems worth the effort.

AAU is not one thing. The experience is shaped largely by the coach or the individual organization. I coached with Hoop Masters AAU in West Los Angeles during college, and the coaching and instruction was as good or better than many high-school programs. I moved to Santa Monica Surf, and the coaching for the U9-U12s at the time surpassed the coaching the local high-school varsity players received. I coached with the NorCal Sparx, and the program was well-run with good, caring coaches who taught sound fundamentals. These players received a great foundation on which to progress, and many players I coached directly or who were in the programs simultaneously eventually played NCAA Division 1 and 2 basketball at programs such as UCLA, USC, UCSD, LMU, Princeton, and more.

Of course, I witnessed many negatives attributed to AAU today, from parents fighting in the parking lot to coaches screaming at their own players to the point of tears to traveling for hours to play two games and more. It was not perfect. Scholastic sports has many of the same problems, whether racist chants from student sections, post-game fights, coach abuse, and more. No large organization is completely immune from problems, but we tend to characterize AAU by its worst issues and high-school sports by its best.

The truth for both is in the middle. Some coaches and programs are great, some are bad, and most are in the middle, somewhere between below average and above average.

High-school AAU serves many different roles, which creates problems in terms of expectations and outcomes. Is the purpose exposure? Development? Competition? Many coaches and teams attempt to blend all three and fail to accomplish any. Just this weekend, I saw scores reported like a championship was on the line and coaches showing photographs of trophies, while college coaches suggested each team should have only eight players because exposure is the only thing that matters, which is difficult with any more than eight or nine players.

Europeans do not have AAU; or, more accurately, they do not have scholastic sports (well, often they do, but it’s one tournament or a handful of games with no practices); they play with their clubs year-round. My teams started in August and ended in late May. Most start in August or September and end in late April or May, depending on country. The better players moved from our team to the age-group national-team tryouts, and the others generally attended a local camp and then enjoyed their summer vacations. The non-national team players started a week or two earlier in the fall, while the national-team players took a longer break, especially those who competed in August.

Many European players generate interest, or gain exposure, through summer competition with their national teams. These experiences also further their development, as they play with and against the best players. However, the purpose is competition. Teams compete to advance and win trophies. Players play to win and to represent their countries. The intentions are clear, and any exposure and improvement are by-products.

Scholastic sports, by and large, are competitive. High-school teams compete to win league, district, regional, and state championships. Players receive exposure or have colleges scout them at high-school games, and players improve, but the general purpose, for good or bad, is competition.

Some suggest the United States should be more like Europe and focus on development in youth basketball, but countries such as Spain compete for national championships as young as U12s. These leagues and organizations certainly develop players and focus on development, but they also compete for medals and trophies. The developmental focus occurs because the season is longer with games primarily on weekends, providing more practices for each game. The developmental focus does not mean an absence of competition, regional or national competitions, trophies, rankings, and more.

The idea competition and development are opposites is one problem with basketball discourse, just as the idea individual workouts are skill development and games are not is problematic. Competition provides an invaluable context for motor learning through skill adaptation (Araújo & Davids, 2011; Renshaw et al., 2022); we learn through playing, not just through practice.

How would AAU change if we focused on development?

First, we would de-emphasize scouting and player rankings, especially in youth basketball. Exposure events are the opposite of development, regardless of whatever drills trainers attempt to include, because the goal is to perform for the scouts, to put one’s best foot forward, not to try new things or challenge oneself.

Second, we would separate the games more to include more practices. This has been one major complaint about high-school AAU basketball for over 20 years, as some programs treat tournaments like all-star games, mixing players from various locations who never practice together into a team for a tournament. Weekend tournaments should afford more time to practice during the week, although that rarely occurs, often due to the cost of gym rentals.

Third, everyone would play. Why keep some players on the bench all game when the outcome is de-emphasized? Players do not develop simply by watching the games; they need to play.

Fourth, we would stratify the competition. Nobody develops in blowouts. Teams should be playing against similar competition, plus or minus. Competition comes from Latin roots which mean to strive together. Teams should aim to play teams that help to elevate each other’s performances, to provide the just-right challenges we strive for in skill development and learning. Learning to execute in close games is an important skill to develop.

Fifth, travel should not be extensive when development is the goal. Teams from smaller towns may need to travel to find more equitable competition and new teams to play against, but teams in large cities and suburbs should not need to travel too far beyond their area for most of their games.

Sixth, teams should encourage ball movement and sharing the ball instead of one player dominating the action. In competitive leagues and professional basketball, players specialize, and coaches rely on one strong ball handler to initiate the action and be the playmaker on almost every possession. Many great plays highlighted on social media get the ball out of the ball handler’s hands and quickly back into their hands for the deciding action (the weave below may look like ball movement, but it’s designed for the ball to move until the PG gets it and makes a play; nobody else is looking to make a play).

Developmental teams should be more democratic and allow more players opportunities to be playmakers and play finishers. Just as it is difficult to develop on the bench, it is hard to develop without touching the ball.

Now, how would AAU change if we focused on maximizing exposure?

First, we might attempt to attract the best players to a single location as often as possible to play with and against each other, similar to an all-star game. Events might be based more on invitations than open signups.

Second, we might switch the teams often to insure players play different roles, and every player has a chance to highlight their talent.

Third, we might play different games, such as one-vs-one and three-vs-three to create different looks and insure nobody falls through the cracks because they do not get enough touches in the games. Three-vs-three might help post players who do not see the ball as often in five-vs-five, and one-vs-one may differentiate some shot creators who may embrace facilitating roles in five-vs-five games.

Fourth, we might play some half-court games to see if the players who look good in an open, fast-paced game can execute in the half-court against set defenses. Can the talented players run a set play? Can they execute simple fundamentals such as setting and using screens?

Finally, which of these would not fit or would change if we focused on competition?

First, we might prohibit the all-star teams and restrict teams to players from a certain geographical region to insure equitable competition and greater practice time and team cohesion. Lop-sided games serve no purpose.

Second, coaches likely would not play every player in every game when focused on winning, which is a potential negative.

Third, we would play fewer games in a weekend to maximize the performances.

Fourth, we might play longer games with college or FIBA rules.

Fifth, we might structure the competitions to lead to a meaningful championship.

Our youth players usually played two games on the weekend, one Saturday and one Sunday. International tournaments play one game per day. When we attended weekend tournaments, games were shortened from 40 minutes to 32 minutes when playing two games in a day. We played stages with five games over the weekend: Two on Friday, two on Saturday, and one on Sunday. We travelled as far as 10 hours by bus for one stage, and other opponents travelled further to some competitions. Most of our weekend league games required a two to three-hour bus ride.

The problem with AAU is chasing competition, development, and exposure, but ending up with the worst version of each. Many people argue the games do not really count, de-emphasizing the competition and the lessons that accompany playing to win, but then coaches still do not play every player and employ systems revolving around one or two players. We invite scouts to watch games, but many are uncompetitive with unbalanced opposition and only some teams concerned with the outcome and not every player getting an opportunity, meaning some players are easily overlooked. Games are played primarily in transition meaning a certain type of player stands out, and players with important skill sets, such as navigating pick-and-rolls, playing in tighter spaces, making second and third reads, shooting against pressure, movement shooting, post play, and more, may be unnoticed.

AAU/club basketball has the opportunity to create the best version of youth and high-school basketball, but instead we tend to see the worst parts of pickup games, high-school basketball, and more. Rather than combining the best attributes and creating an unparalleled system meeting the needs of all players, we continue to support expensive tournaments with blowouts, poor refereeing, no security, a lack of competition, and more.

AAU is not the problem; it is the individual coaches, organizations, and event operators who operate in this manner and support these negative experiences. The last time I coached AAU, we played in a local recreation league against other local AAU teams and practiced like we were a high-school team, although we had players from 8-10 schools. The team before that was an elite team for its area who regularly skipped the local events and invited one to two other of the better teams within driving distance to scrimmage. The teams set their own rules and competed to win, but there was nothing at stake, so everyone played. Another club turned one of its practice days into an open gym for anyone of the specific age group (10-13) who wanted to play. There are alternatives to the current paradigm, but they require slightly more effort than signing up for the next tournament. Why participate when winning the tournament is meaningless? Why participate in tournaments college coaches cannot attend when exposure is the primary goal? Why play zone, isolate your best player every possession, and not play everyone on the team when the goal is development?

Everyone remains displeased when goals are unstated, but nobody is willing to search for alternatives. Competition, development, and exposure are worthwhile goals for high-school aged players. Competing elevates development for those who play and allows for exposure for those who win. Events designed specifically for exposure should not be just another five-on-five tournament, but organize different competitions to showcase different skillsets. Games are part of development, but players need to be on the court and get touches, which may not occur when coaches focus solely on winning. A clear intention for events and organizations can help players and parents make better decisions about the best environment for them.

The United States is large enough for USA Basketball to create a state championship tournament, as Australia and Canada do with their provinces. Each state (maybe combine the Dakotas and New Hampshire and Vermont to create 48 teams) creates its own state team. The state team prepares and competes for the championship. Could start with eight pools of six teams each. The top three from each pool move to the finals. Pool winners receive a bye. Other 16 teams play each other with the winners moving to final 16. The tournament could include two age groups (U16/U18), which means over 1100 players, or possibly four age groups (U15/U16/U17/U18) or over 2200 players. Not every top player would be included, but no system is fair to every person. The cost of the training camps, travel, and tournament games should be able to be covered between USA Basketball, Nike, and a TV contract to broadcast the games on ESPN, Peacock, Amazon, or wherever.

This type of summer tournament could replace much of travel ball for high-school aged players. Other players could play locally and regionally in camps, leagues, or tournaments with clubs or high-school teams. This would create the feel of what players in other countries experience, as only 12 players per age group representing the United States internationally  at each age group seems too few based on the number of quality players. The national tournament could bridge the gap, while also potentially adding some sanity for everyone else. The USA Basketball tournament would be the clear top level competition.

Alternatively, or additionally, high schools could extend their seasons. Many high schools play spring, summer, and fall leagues anyway. Why not just extend the actual high-school season? This might disadvantage some smaller high schools who depend on three-sport athletes. Some athletes may have to make hard choices, and some coaches may have to learn to work with the football or soccer coaches to share players, but no system is perfect. We have a two-tiered system because a four-month, 25-game season is insufficient for 16-18 year-olds. Even the Developmental Model of Sports Participation moves to Investment at 16 years and older, after the earlier Sampling (6-12 years old) and Specializing (13-15) years (Cote & Fraser-Thomas, 2007). My U16 and U18 players played around 60 games in a 9-10 month season. Either lengthen the high-school season, incorporating the fall and spring leagues as part of the actual season, or prohibit high schools from playing during these months so players do not have to choose between school and club teams or attempt to play for both simultaneously.

Otherwise, to fix AAU, AAU should create a database of all players and teams that tournaments can use to determine brackets to create more competitive games. Of course, this requires some professionalization of the tournaments, scorekeeping, and more, and tournaments already are expensive enough without contributing to the costs of maintaining an accurate database.

Ultimately even more than creating more competitive tournaments, we should strive to decrease the cost of participation in youth sports. Whether it is called AAU or something else, leagues and tournaments should be reasonably-priced. Admission to tournaments should not exceed the cost of college basketball games (youth games are free to attend almost everywhere else in the world, including national championship tournaments and international tournaments). Everyone has a business to run, and a right to earn a living, but every child has a right to play as well, and right now the costs are prohibitive for many children.

Araújo, D., & Davids, K. (2011). What exactly is acquired during skill acquisition?. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(3-4), 7-23.

Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & O'Sullivan, M. (2022). Learning and performing: What can theory offer high performance sports practitioners?. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(2), 162-78.

Baker, J., Cobley, S., & Fraser‐Thomas, J. (2009). What do we know about early sport specialization? Not much!. High Ability Studies, 20(1), 77-89.