US Soccer Academy Showcases

Only very partial results on the website.

This one cracks me up. The '91 Academies are U17. This is 2008, all the boys at the state age group turn 17 in the calendar year, they are U17 according to not only all logic, but the international rules.

The U.S. however persists in calling this a U16 league.

So finally, the U.S. fixed the name. Now these teams are ... U15/U16.

Yeah, OK. There are (some) 17 year olds on the field, and it's U15/U16.

 

Next year if they go with 90/92 age groups does that mean they would be U-16/17 and u-17/18?

 

Ignorant and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this year's groupings are/were U18 = 89/90s, and U16 = 91/92s? So next season U18 will be 90/91s and the U16 will be 92/93s.

 

Close ... next year will be calendar-year 1990, and calendar-year 1992.

Some clubs may run their squads according to the club calendar and make them 90/91s, and 92/93s, but that is not the official rule. And not all clubs will do that. There will be very few '93s on the '92 Academy squad at my son's club next year, in fact I would say nobody for sure except for one kid who is born the second week of January. That will basically be a '92 team, just as this year the U16s are just about all '91s.

 

Our current U16 team is all 91s with many being on the older side of 91. With that being said, one local academy club is giving our club a ration of *** on our local chatsite for doing so. Our current U18 is all 90s with a few 89s. I'd like to hear the symantics about the age groupings of other teams.

On the subject of Frisco, I've been told many MNT coaches will be there to scout, and some top D1 colleges will there also. Also how is the weather? Cold? Rainy?

 

Sockers are calendar year, Magic/Wind is basically club year, Fire I don't know.

No clue, I have a second-half '93. But it's gotta be better than Chicago, the land of cancelled flights.

 

you're academyinfo, you tell us. .

 

It's simple but it's wrong. 1991 + 16 = 2007.

Barcelona calls players born after January 1, 1991 U17s. So does Santos. So does AC Milan. So does Arsenal. So does Club America. So, in fact, does everybody else in the world, except for U.S. Academies.

 

Good luck playing our '91 Academy team, those boys will be spanked.

Why would a club not fill its '91 roster with '91 players? Not enough good players at the club? At my son's team, they cut a '91 State ODP player ... they're sure as heck not going to bring on '92s and '93s, when they are cutting State '91s.

 

Because they think of long term success rather than short term. Sure, maybe your son's team will be physiclly and tacitcly stronger now but in the long run, the younger boys will be better because they have always played a year up.

Does that make sense?

 

It makes sense at some places...but not at the club that JohnR's kid plays at. they will have a very good academy team EVERY YEAR. Their training environment will be as good as many games in most parts of the country. The 92s, 93's, and 94s at that club will produce at the level they are at now...and when their turn comes, they will play at the highest level the Academy program has to offer.

 

Our current U18 is all 90s with a few 89s. I'd like to hear the symantics about the age groupings of other teams.

The Fire Academy took 12 players from the Illinois ODP 1992 Team, (8 of them being Region II Pool players) 2 93's and the rest younger 91's. Playing against the teams that chose to play true U-17s will be tough. The good thing is they will have over 3/4 of their team playing U-16 again next year.

 

Not really. Not to me. The club has 20 very good 1991s. Why cut some of them and deny them Academy opportunity, to play 1992s and 1993s? The 1992s and 1993s will get their chance. For the 1991s, the time is now.

Playing up is overrated, my kid has spent half his life doing that. Better to play at age group with better players, than to play up against worse players.

 

Where are the older '91s? Are they on U18 Academy? Or is that age group absent from the Academy program?

 

The older 91s are playing at U-18

 

So effectively, the Fire is running each Academy team as a 2-year team.

Interesting. I could support that notion. It has the huge advantage over the 1-year program that a player can be Academy for 4 straight years, as opposed to being Academy 1 year, nonAcademy the next. On the other hand, it means a smaller player pool -- basically about 10 guys per year who qualify for the Academy, as opposed to the 1-year notion that 20 guys are good enough.

I don't blame the different clubs for coming up with different solutions to the Academy age structure, but is sure is confusing!

 

Couple of issues -

The 1992 who is born in the first half of the year, will be a sophomore in HS the first year of the Academy, thus will be in college year 4.

In year 1, the 1992 who is born in the second half of the year wil have a heck of a time hanging with the 1991 who is born in the first half of the year. I've seen national players get toasted by good players who are 18 months older than them. Your everyday Academy type player, conceding 18 months in age? Ouch.

 

Mostly juniors at my kid's club, but I know what you mean.

Hope so. Although to me, the first place to start is that missing year of U17. With the current structure, a lot of kids will play Academy the U16 year, then in the critical U17 year (for college purposes), they will either not be Academy, or will be role players, stuck behind older kids. That doesn't make sense to me.

I am nowhere near so sure. This one also puzzles me. Say you have the kid who is Academy in the U16 year, but not U17 year. So he has to skip HS one year, but then is supposed to go back to HS the next year? Yeah, his HS coach will like that one ... not. The kid will probably spend the junior HS season watching from the bench.

 

I have read quotes from people within US Soccer, chief among them John Hackworth...in which they say that they do not want to take high school soccer away from their players. They are still saying it will be up to the individual club to decide whether to allow the players to play high school or not. Still a long ways until the fall though, and things have been changing very rapidly lately.

Bottom line is that as of now it SEEMS that all teams would not be starting the next season in Sept 08.

 

The Academy needs to have teams in at least 3 age groups, i.e., this year should have been at least 1989, 1990, and 1991, or U16, U17 and U18 in USSF speak. This would eliminate the "gap year" problem noted by JohnR.


To improve, the Academy should have 4 age groups, so this year should have been 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992, or better yet 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 (at any rate, U15 through U18). If USSF is willing to fund the Academy, USSF probably will be able to continue with two groups (U16 and U18), even though it makes little sense from a developmental perspective. However, if as expected parents continue paying the freight, I don't see how USSF can stick with only two age groups, i..e, too many kids making the U16 team in Year 1(as say a late 1991 this year) and then trying out for the U18 the following year and getting cut (when they have to compete with January 1990s).


With 4 age groups, USSF will increase the pool and concurrently decrease the number of talented players who are cut due to having an unfavorable birthday. Four age groups will also decrease the emphasis on size and maturity, and will increase the emphasis on skills/soccer talent, as criteria for selecting the Academy teams. With the two year gap, USSF is replicating the current bias against "late odd year" players making Residency at Bradenton. Is that what we want?


Also, USSF should probably start the program a year younger if they want to implement their "new and improved" training methods in a meaningful way.