I think it's also worth noting that very few people in many other countries even play sports. This is one of the reasons why we manage to bring in more medals at the Olympics than the western European countries COMBINED (and did so long before the IOC began adding some American sports to cater to the American tv market). They aren't very good at participation and development over there. We shouldn't model ourselves after them. It's counterproductive to single out 500 14-year olds or 300 16-year olds for special treatment as if anyone has any idea whether they're likely pros. That just tends to discourage the next 5,000, and the better athletes who may prefer soccer will instead drift to other sports. Some of those next 5,000 would have developed into better players than almost everyone in the smaller group who seemed better a few years before. The best system encourages the maximum number of players to keep playing at all levels before college. I played with a guy in high school who later played for the national team. At 16, he was good, but no better than several others in my relatively small city. He would never have advanced if we had the sort of system some of you are advocating.
Yeah, right! Cause you just know that'll be the way they do it -- they'll be in a white astrovan, cruising playgrounds, and when they see a great goal, three guys in ski masks will run out, grab the kid and cart him away to Academy!!! The problem with this isn't even the fact that you know as well as I do that a great kid playing pick-up in the park is never going to get spotted. It's the fact that the best 14-year olds simply don't become the best 20-year olds by any rigorous statistic. A couple of them do, but most of the best 20-year olds are just leaders of their run-of-the-mill teams at 14. Some of them still weigh 92 lbs. Others are 6-foot and haven't even figured out how to coordinate their newfound height. The fact that they'll miss some of the best 14-year olds is the least of the problems with these sorts of ideas. The big problem is suggesting to the rest of the crop of 14-yr. olds that they've already missed the cut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Summer_Olympics_medal_count USA = 102 medals Germany = 49 medals France = 33 medals Italy = 32 medals Great Britain = 30 medals Netherlands = 22 medals Spain = 19 medals Total for just a few Western European countries = 185 medals
That summarizes my view of the youth talent identification process, as well. That said, in having 64 teams of about 20 kids per age group, the Academy system is intended to cast a wide net. Perhaps in some cases too wide according to scoachd, who sees Academy guys who aren't even D1 prospects.
There had better be some. 64*20 is 1,280 kids in a single age group. College would have to be pretty sad for them all to make the cut.
Roughly speaking, there are 200 colleges x 5 slots = 1000 players per year into D1. Maybe half the Academy players are the among the top 1000, and some of those guys won't have the grades to play D1. So I figure that the Academies will make up something less than 50% of the incoming D1 players. Basically, the guys who start for the Academy teams will be D1 players if their grades are good, and of course if they are not among the relative few who get professional contracts as teenagers. Roughly speaking.
For some reason I had the idea in my head there were only 90-some div I programs, but with a quick check of ncaa.org, I see you're right. Still, as you say there's no way the thousand and change kids matriculating from each academy are going to be the same thousand and change getting D1 roster spots. No program is that good, even if it could blanket the country, which it really can't.