http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sondheimer25jan25,1,1969609.column?ctrack=3&cset=true Interesting article about how in SoCal the USSF Development Academy is bumping up on the turf of H.S. soccer, and not everyone likes that idea. Didn't the Galaxy recently drop out of the USSF program? I wonder if that had anything to do with things.
See if you can't read it this way: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sondheimer25jan25,1,1969609.column?track=rss There are usually ways around the registration.
I gotta say I'm not all that sympathetic to the SoCal high schools on this one, because US Soccer tried pretty hard to let the kids play HS in most areas, but most areas don't play soccer in the middle of winter, and many don't have a rule against time-splitting. Also, HS sometimes works at cross purposes with itself between participation-oriented and trying to be elite teams. If it was participation oriented, they shouldn't feel that angry about a select few players being too good for that level. If it's really about building an elite team, they're not likely ever to compete. Lastly, some of the theories by college coaches are a little bogus. For instance: In reality they're not necessarily all that scarce compared to academy slots. There are 64 academy teams and just over 200 NCAA division I programs (more if you throw in Div. II). That means there are theoretically (if everyone used all their 9.9 scholarships) almost 2000 per four year cycle, or 500 a year. That number should increase a good bit further factoring in Div II schools (which I believe have some scholarships, but I don't know how many). If you assume that the academies someday have the pick of the littler in terms of talent, 500 spots divided by 64 academy clubs would be almost 8 scholarships per year per club. Considering that the academies apparently operate on two year cycles, there should be enough for everyone that doesn't go pro immediately after high school and whose talent wasn't misjudged by the evaluators. EDIT: I found a site listing for Div II. http://www.go-vsi.com/sports/soccer.htm 161 colleges offer scholarships, and they can offer up to 9.0 per cycle, so that would be another 360 a year.
You make 3 assumptions - none of which are very accurate. First you assume the Academy teams are the “Pick of the litter.” Many kids from Texas, for example, would beg to differ as would people in many areas of the country including Cal-South. But even if that were the case, there are about 25 kids on a team for at most 9.9 scholarships. Even the National team players at places like UCLA and ACC schools are fighting to get more than their 40%. Second you assume most of the schools are fully funded. The reality is that many are not. This quote is a couple years old "Only about 100 of them are fully funded (to offer 9.9 scholarships),'' Santa Clara men's coach Cameron Rast said. "The others might offer five scholarships. There are 5,000 student-athletes trying for 1,500 scholarships in a year when there are 100,000 senior players coming out of high school. The percentages are low.'' Third you assume these scholarships are going to US kids. The reality is very different. Here are the NSCAA awards for a couple regions. I think its safe to say that some (or a lot on many teams) will go to kids from outside the US. All-North Atlantic Region First Team Pos. Name Year School Hometown K Milos Kocic So. Loyola (Md.) Leskovac, Serbia D Tennant McVea So. Loyola (Md.) Belfast, Northern Ireland D Liam Parrington Jr. Hartwick Woking, England D David Tyrie Jr. Central Connecticut State� Norwich-Norfolk, England M Sam Bailey Sr. Fairfield Cheshire, England M Chris DeAbreu Jr. St. Peter's� Pickering, Ontario M Yan Klukowski Jr. Central Connecticut State� Wiltshire, England F Graciano Brito Jr. Quinnipiac Sao Nicolau, Cape Verde F Juan Gaviria Sr. St. Peter's Elizabeth, N.J. F Damon Wilson Sr. Monmouth Swedesboro, N.J. F Murphy Wiredu Sr. St. Peter's � All-Northeast Region First Team Pos. Name Year School Hometown K Matt Glaeser Sr. Hartford Fredericksburg, Va. D Adam Chavez Sr. Binghamton� Endicott, N.Y. D Julius James Sr. Connecticut Maloney Gardens, Trinidad D Kevon Neaves Jr. South Florida Petit Valley, Trinidad M Simon Schoendorf Sr. South Florida Karlsruhe, Germany M Toni Stahl So. Connecticut Tuusula, Finland M Andrew Wright Sr. West Virginia Liverpool, England F Andre Akpan So. Harvard� Grand Prairie, Texas F Michael Fucito Jr. Harvard� Westford, Mass. F Cameron Keith So. Binghamton� Aberdeenshire, Scotland F O'Brian White Jr. Connecticut Scarborough, Ontario
Well, I assumed that they would "someday." (Which, stangely, is why I used the phrase "if you assume the academies someday . . .") At the present point, they don't. But it's foolish to criticise a newborn program for not plopping out of the womb a fully formed adult. Again, there are four times as many schools as clubs--and that's just in Division I. If you're a YNT fighting for a scholarship at UCLA, it's because you chose to do so because UCLA is such a top program. Well, again I believe I used the word "theoretically" on that point (you can't just go around mentally deleting people's qualifiers). The counterbalance here is that a lot of the scholarships are spread around and then combined with academic scholarships, so the number of kids who get substantial help turns out in all likelihood to be greater and not less than 2,000. Which ends up re-inforcing my point. The odds of the randomly chosen high school kid being good enough for a scholarship? Very, very poor. The odds of the average Academy program kid (again, assuming the program works the way it's supposed to), not nearly so poor. Looks to me like, in concept, the USSF Academy should be able to deliver a 50/50 probability of substantial scholarship help, or even slightly better. And frankly I doubt this point is true. The NSCAA awards don't realistically represent the whole of the scolar-athlete population. They're maybe 1%, and it wouldn't be surprising if the foreign kids skewed to the top, or else why would colleges take the trouble of recruiting them from 5000 miles away? Or, looked at from the opposite direction, why would they come if they weren't getting help?
I think that sometimes people are a bit unfair to the high schools. The stronger HS programs in the major metropolitan areas play a decent brand of soccer, and have the kids playing 5x - 6x weekly. That ain't so bad for development. I also haven't noticed a higher rate of injury, sure some injuries happen during HS season but believe me I've seen a whole lot of kids with nasty injuries during club ball, too. I am told that in the less populated areas, or regions with less of a soccer tradition, that HS can be pretty awful. But for a kid in Jersey or Chicago burbs or LA area, heck why not.
Fair enough, you're right that places like MLK in New York City can produce some very nice teams. Those are also the ones that might be able to get away with telling kids that it's one or the other. The high schools that have something to lose are those that are generally inferior teams hooking their fates to one or two star players.
Maybe we have a failure to communicate because the point of my post is that there are probably about 1500 equivalent full-time grants. For the sake of argument 1/3 are probably going to kids from outside the US (I think its safe to assume the teams best player from Germany is getting most of the money while the local US kid is probably getting some money for books if he's lucky). Another 1/3 is going to kids from outside whatever group of teams you want to identify as elite (plus junior college transfers, no-name freshman that eventually turned out to be good and thus get the money) and another 500 to be split between four graduating classes. That leaves about 250 scholarships to be split between the 18+ players (remember academy teams don't have roster limits) for each of the 64 programs. Compared to 85 full grants available on virtually every D1 football, I wouldn't consider this number to be very abundant. There is also one other assumption I think we disagree on. You seem to think the Academy program is gong to grow and thrive. I think it is a failed model and will have to be radically changed for it to come close to delivering on its promises. Time will tell.
Would you care to tell us all why you think the Academy program is a failed model? I would like to know. Thanks.
Because in SoCal where he lives, the Academy clubs are mostly the rich kid programs, as opposed to clubs like Celtic & Barca & West Valley that keep their fees very low and appeal to a wider demographic. At least, I think that is the argument.
The problem I have here is that we can't just do a "for the sake of argument" on your numbers. They have to be close to accurate for your conclusion to work, and I don't think that's the case. Indeed, time will tell. But you're using the present tense about a future prediction. You can't declare an experiment to be a failure before it's run. I do expect, however, that there will have to be heavy professional involvement, and the money that comes with that, to make it work. (Don't necessarily think that's different from any initiative whereby you really improve the youth development scenario from the top). And I would venture that there's a kernel of truth to that claim. . . in SoCal. In most of the country, it's hard to get development without without a heavy "pay for play" ingredient. The USSF Academies tend, I think, to be an improvement in many areas. Worst case scenario we end up with two (or more, as I'm not claiming that SoCal is necessarily the only area that doesn't fit, only that it doesn't represent most of the country)
Here is a non-inclusive list off the top of my head: 1) It was not well planned or organized. 2) There is no solid funding in place. 3) Its too expensive and has unnecessary travel costs 4) It was built as much (or more) to benefit insiders than for development purposes. 5) Its not elite, nor can it be based on the cost structure and the large number of mediocre players involved. 6) It has disrupted the two best areas (California and Texas) in terms of player development. 7) Great players are developed at lower ages anyway and by the time they get into these programs, the window has closed. You don't get an elite program by coercing people to join an inferior program. In Cal-South they found enough wealthy programs like Pats and ISC that were losing ground to low cost clubs, or a wealthy wished they were elite like LAFC, to get people to believe they were getting elite into the Academy program. In Texas they had a better model so model tried to drag them in by preventing some of the best players from being involved Nike friendlies. This is a good way to consolidate your power base, but a crappy way to develop a true quality development program. The goal was to create a program with enough development window dressing and good players to have the cache to attract enough relatively average players to pay the salaries of people that set it up. Nothing more. I don't think it will succeed. But even if it does succeed in getting people paid, what ever gains in development for the rest of the country will be offset by deterioration in Texas and Cal-South - the places where you get the Donovan’s, Dempsey’s and the last four #1 picks in the MLS draft. Being from Cal-South, I’m especially not a fan.
Where do you think I'm wrong? The 1500 scholarships? I figured you wouldn’t believe me so I gave you a source. The number going to foreign players? Look at the top programs. I’ll give you Wake, Ohio state and Indiana. BC is probably split while most of the money is clearly going to foreign kids at Uconn and West Virginia. When you get to the mid-majors like Akron’s conference, it really start to skew foreign. The Number going to non-academy kids? Look at the players from Cal-South in residency at U17 listed on the USSF site. Arevalo, Estanilao D 5-8 145 1/14/92 Oxnard, Calif. Valley United Blast Arreola, Eder M/F 5-6 135 11/13/91 Chino Hills, Calif. FC Barcelona (Calif.) Cruz, Pablito M 5-4 110 12/30/91 Azusa, Calif. FC Barcelona (Calif.) Edwards, Earl GK 6-3 210 01/24/92 San Diego, Calif. La Jolla Nomads SC Gutierrez, Jaime F 5-11 170 01/21/92 San Diego, Calif. La Jolla Nomads SC Gyau, Joseph-Claude F 5-6 130 09/16/92 Lake Forest, Calif. West Coast FC Lemus, Edson M 5-8 140 01/29/92 Wilmington, Calif. Stampede FC Orozco, Emilio F 5-10 150 04/29/92 Oxnard, Calif. Rampage FC Wow – two kids from Nomads. It sure seems like the Academy sure got the elite in Cal-South, doesn’t it. This is an older list so I'm sure they've probably convinced a couple to go by offering to pay everything. I'm sure the USSF will also realize this looks bad and tell kids they have to be listed on an Academy team it they want to participate in the National program (for "development" purposes of course). That's the way they tried to deal with Texas kids. But the reality most of the good players don't come from those programs because they can only pay everything for a few. The lack of money to support it? If it is so cheap, why the heck did it take Major League soccer teams so long? Do you have any idea what it costs to support a team? I just wrote a couple things to support my position. How about supporting yours?
Good lord, the program is all of 6 months old. If a kid isn't on an academy team then he participate in ODP to get to residency. If you're on an academy team, you're not eligible to take place in ODP so naturally not many academy kids are going to be at residency.
The academy teams are only supposed to be playing 8 month seasons and players are supposed to be allowed to play on high school teams. Is this a matter of timing? U.S. Soccer Launches Development Academy to Expand Opportunities for Players Nationwide It seems to me that the USSF could easily force club teams to allow players to compete in high school if they wished to stay in the USSF program.
Obviously this is pretty intractable, but I went back over the posts looking for a 'source' for your number, and there isn't one. You just did the same kind of back-of-the-envelope calculation I had already done. (And I did it better, because I accounted for schools where kids get a partial scholarship but the rest of their tuition gets funded another way, through need-based or merit-based funding, which happens all the time). But for one bit of clarification--my estimate of 2000 and yours of 1500 aren't fundamentally that far apart. Even if my number is wrong, my claim that going from USSF academy to college scholarship is not a huge longshot isn't hurt by much. If 64 academy clubs matriculate 12.5 kids a year, that's 800 kids looking for spots. There will be 500 spots by my number, 375 by yours. Back to context--the quoteds HS coach is claiming that the idea of a lot of kids gaining college scholarships through elite national level academies is basically snake oil. The whole idea, not only this business about the Academies not being good enough in their first recruiting year. He is claiming that just due to the lack of scholarships out there. That reasoning is fallacious. I think it's pretty clear you don't have a sense of how many scholarships go to foreign players on a nationwide basis. I don't even think you have a precise definition of that term. (Does anyone born in a foreign country count, even if they went to HS here? Is anyone with a "funny name" meeting your description?) Furthermore I get the strong impression that, since you have an axe to grind on this issue, you're debating every point related to it, even the weakest ones, out of compulsiveness.
The issue is, how would the SoCal teams play their schedule, since their HSes play a different season and won't let the players split time?
1) Here is the source: THE SCHOLARSHIP CHASE: Northern California soccer Are goals really within reach?- Tom FitzGerald, Chronicle Staff WriterSunday, October 30, 2005. If you took the quote and put it in google, you could have got it from any number of places yourself. 2) According to the article, the quote wasn't from a High School coach. 3) You continue to believe the Academy programs can and will get the top players. But unless the cost is lowered considerably, it won't. 4) You continue to disregard the obvious point that a significant amount of money goes to players from outside the US. I'll admit I don't know the percentage as I don't know of a database that has it. It is not like tennis, but talking to some coaches and looking at the rosters, it is obvious the numbers are certainly material. One thing you fail to realize is that there are a lot of very good soccer players around the world that also think getting an education is a smart thing to do. Good examples are Ryan Nelson and Simon Elliot who are not only making good money England right now, but got a Stanford degree as well. So the kids in the US are just competing against other US kids, they are also competing against kids from around the world that think it might be a wise idea to hedge their bets. Yes I have quite a few issues with the implementation. Most of its pollyannish supporters are oblivious to its many issues. Time will not fix its structural problems.
Another Article Here is another article I stumbled across. Draining the soccer pool Here is another article I stumbled across. This is what I don't like about it. It is about the ability to play but the ability to pay. This is the reason that LAFC had only 3 boys over U11 playing in the top league for their age group. Like most clubs, they give free rides to kids they think will be impact players. However the pool of players willing to pay their fees is too small to be competitive at the top level. Coast Soccer league is about $600 per team to play per year. If your team is good you can play at the best level. With the Academy, if you want to play, you have to join one of 6 teams that will charge whatever the market will bear for parents who are interested in having their kid called an "elite" player. If these teams split from Coast they are going to dilute the talent, reduce competition and lower the quality of play.
Could you enlighten me on the two seasons? Why isn't California HS soccer played in the fall? Competes with football? Greener fields in winter?
OK, fair enough, except they don't list Div. II totals (which I pointed in my original post on the subject). And again, a college can give half scholarships, with the student making it up via academic scholarship or need-based aid. This is not trivial, it happens regularly. And the context still remains. We weren't that far off to begin with, so once we start splitting the difference it looks like a quibble to me (which is why I said you need your numbers to work on a literal level to support the argument that was made in the article). You're right, it's from a parent. I don't dispute that some good players are coming across the Atlantic--I dispute it's so many that it's crowding out scholarships for American players on a nationwide basis. I do not believe that will happen automatically or anything. But you've declared the project a failure before it begun. 'Disregard?' I dispute it--at least that it makes a difference on the order that you're claiming it does. Fair enough, but what I can't figure out is where you made the leap from that to this whole 'failed experiment' paradigm that's got a whole lot more baggage on board (including that you haven't actually waited until the experiment's been run to declare that failure). Implementation changes.
Not really. I would be taking a guess. That guess would start with "because they can" where obviously it's difficult to run a soccer season in February in Chicago.