Shot Clock Approved, District Play Sidelined
The AHSAA Central Board met last week and things are moving slightly in the right direction
The AHSAA Central Board has finally approved something people have been clamoring for - a shot clock in high school basketball. Coaches have overwhelmingly supported the change with over 80% of coaches saying they want to have it active during games (with over 90% of 6A/7A coaches in favor) according to the Alabama Association of Basketball Coaches. Many schools have moved on to adopt the shot clock in non-area games anyway, and it’s led to increased support.
Those who disagree cite one thing - money. It will require schools to add a clock on either end of the court either on the goal or to the side where it can be seen - and it can get costly. It will also require paying someone and educating them to run it. But for the game to improve, it’s a decision that most people are rejoicing.
Now that it’s approved, shot clocks will be used in all games across all classifications, and in the playoffs, starting next year (2026-27 season).
However, one thing that was shelved in the meeting was the potential for district play instead of area play. Currently, most sports use 4 team areas to determine postseason play (some are 3, some are 5). Most areas will actually be 4 teams moving forward with the more evenly spaced out classifications. A lot of people have been championing the shift to “district” play though and it has some momentum, but not enough from the AHSAA. And it’s not only in basketball, but any sport that uses the 4-team area like volleyball, baseball, softball and soccer.
District play essentially brings things to an 8-team grouping like football instead of 4 - but how you get there can be done a couple of ways. Either leave areas as they are, but have a permanent cross-area and that’s your district. Or, you can leave football regions alone and split it into 4 and 4 and go from there.
Once you have your district, you would play the teams in your 4-team group twice (home and home). Then you would play the other four teams (your “cross-area”) one time a piece - two home and two away - then swap the next year.
The biggest reason for district play is that it helps eliminate the potential for a really good third place team to miss the playoffs. A perfect example is 6A Area 8 in boy’s soccer this year. It currently features (as of 4/13) #1 Pelham, #3 Briarwood and #5 Chelsea - Pelham and Briarwood qualified for the playoffs because the top 2 of 4 move on. That means the #5 team in the state didn’t qualify for the 32-team playoff bracket, yet teams with losing records did.
The thinking is that taking the top 4 of 8-team groupings leads to a better representation in the playoffs than the current top 2 of 4-team format. It also helps with scheduling as it would mandate 10 games of the potential 30 that a team can play instead of 6 as it is now. That means more games would mean something for the postseason.
Then, instead of a 4-team area tournament where the top 2 make it, you would play an 8-team district tournament and the top 4 would make it. The other difference is that it would feature a way for the top 2 teams to automatically make the playoffs. As it stands - in a 4-team area you could be undefeated in the regular season, and lose your first area playoff game and be eliminated. And example is Oakwood this year where they ran the table in area, had to “forfeit” their first area game because of playing 31 games and missed the playoffs entirely because of it. Using district play, the top 2 teams would get byes to the semifinals to at least guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs.
There were different district tournament brackets proposed by the AABC, including a straight 8-team single elimination tournament or a bracket similar to the SEC tournament.
There were also different seeding ideas offered for how the postseason should actually be seeded as well. Currently, you have a cross area game in the sub-regional (played at a home site), then shift to regionals with four clumped together areas, then the winners of each regional play in Birmingham. There are a few different schools of thought of how to seed teams when you get to the final 32 teams (or 16 for A/6A, 8 for AA).
One is to use a true ranking system like an RPI ranking. This is how some states do it, including Georgia who just shifted to using this. It rewards the full body of work (all games, not just area) and is an analytical look at seeding. I think all sports would be better off with a ranking like this, but I understand the arguments against it.
Another way to do it is mix things up more than just geographically and do it like 7A football brackets with regionals shifting what areas/districts come to them. And another school of thought is if you just use the football regions to get your 8 teams, then stick to the football brackets across the board.
Is there a system that will make everyone happy? Of course not. Some people want this, others want that - that’s just how life is. But district play does have a big push of support, so it’s something we may get soon in basketball, then maybe other sports as well.
Your thoughts? Let us know on X - @alpreps!