In my estimation we are very far off since you made the completely unsupported assumption that the Academy program was going to be such a roaring succes that you assigned all the Scholarship money to Academy programs. - You discounted that fact that even if they managed to get all the top 15-18 year olds at that time, changes related to maturity, motivation, injuries and many other factors would mean that by the time the kids were 19-23 many different kids would be getting money based on there ability to perform at the college level. Location and type of school would also play a big part. For example, most kids choose to go to school within a few hundred miles of where they grow up. About 1/3 of the men's Division schools are in New England (with New York alone counting for over 10%) while 80 - 90% of the best soccer players live elsewhere in the US. So either many of these kids are going to have to travel across the country for a few extra scholarship dollars given to soccer players or they decide to be like most kids and stay at local schools. Grades are another huge factor. - You discounted the fact many foreign players are getting money. I wouldn't be surprised if it were 25% - 33%. Where to you put it? 1%, 5%, 10%? - Finally you all the best players today are going in these programs. There are large numbers of great players all over the country that are not in them now and most likely never will be. You also significantly factor in need based money when you don't have to play soccer to get it. Also, for need based money you don't have to pick the from the extremely small amount of schools that might be interested in you as a soccer play but instead can pick from the entire range of schools that might best help position you into the career you want to be in. Finally and most importantly you assign causation (a talented soccer player needs to go play at a soccer academy to get money) to something that is more of a correlation (many very good soccer players who do get some money may have chosen to play at a certain program). While it may help some, the benefit is probably not worth the cost for most kids in Cal-South that could get accepted on one of the teams. If a kid has parents who are loaded and their HS coach is a jerk, by all means do it. If they are a poor kid with no interest in college but are so skilled in soccer than Chivas will pay for their training and travel, do it. But if they are one of many, many marginal players on these teams who wishes they could play High School soccer but are paying large money to one of the Academy teams because they think they are going to get a large amount of scholarship money for doing so, they are fooling themselves. Do you really think there is a big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these kids? Do you think any marginal increase they get is going to be worth the memories they don't want to give up but feel forced to do so?
In a continuation of the debate to the relative scarcity of significant scholarship money (not a couple of thousand for books), here is a link to an article from yesterday's NY Times: Expectations Lose to Reality of Sports Scholarships Here are some excerpts with some information to the contrary: A specific quote on the availability citing men's soccer A reality check on another argument that athletic skills are easily parlayed into other sources of scholarship money. There are also many tradeoffs involved with a picking a school based on coaches interest in the soccer versus a students picking school for the ideal academic curriculum and social environment. The bottom line So instead of sacrificing the opportunity to play on your HS team if you want, missing school and study time to spend time and money traveling all over the US in search of other kids your age so you can get in front of those college scouts that have the abundance of money that Stan thinks is available to all those academy players that don't "go pro immediately after high school" . . .
A couple of questions: 1) How does the academy get credit for a player getting merit-based or need-based aid? 2) How does the academy get credit for a player getting some soccer scholarship money, when that same player would have played for one of the top major-population-market clubs anyway in the absence of an academy system?
Look, the point I was trying to make was that the critic in the article implied they're selling snake oil when talking about college scholarships, that in reality there are tall odds against getting any. But the math says that if the academies really produced a collection of the top players, that wouldn't be very true. If you're talking 1-in-2, or even 1-in-3, that still wouldn't validate the complaint. That's all I'm saying.
The snake oil is telling a bunch of gullible kids they should can't play HS ball because academies WILL (not your hypothetical if) produce a collection of professional and top D1 players that get all this money for college. Your point is at this point very much a fairy tale, while original quote seems a lot more grounded in reality.
I wanted to post that for reference, because it seems to me your comments don't reflect it. It seems to imply that the academy kids are all longshots to get anything out of their participation from colleges and pro ranks. That claim doesn't seem right to me, especially if we were (again, note the qualifier there) looking at an academy system that could get some of the top talents at the age group.
This topic is a red-hot one in Washington State right now, too... http://heraldnet.com/article/20080302/SPORTS01/908401097/1007 http://heraldnet.com/article/200803...ace.tough.choice.Academy.soccer.or.prep.socce Which has led to these discussions: http://washingtonpremiersoccer.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7932
Posted in the Seattle Times (not recently): Q: Are you aware that about 35 top high-school boy soccer players in the area aren't competing for their high schools this spring because they are in an elite program run by Crossfire Premier Soccer Club? A: Yes. We'll hear more about this controversy as the season continues. Crossfire has U-16 and U-18 teams in the new U.S. Soccer Development Academy program under the U.S. Soccer Federation. Crossfire, which practices four times a week, took two months off in the winter and is playing a spring schedule against other Western U.S. teams. Crossfire told players they had to choose between school teams or the Academy teams. The other Washington club in the national program, Washington Premier Football Club of Tacoma, played in the winter and is taking its break now and is allowing its players to play high-school soccer.
Could you elaborate on your point as I don't see it. Instead I see an argument about flying pigs qualified by the assumption that pigs can fly. As I recall the article was about Cal-South kids being forced the choose between High School and Academy teams. You seemed to believe the quote was wildly inaccurate. The first line you just posted for reference was: "The real problem is the vast majority of kids that are getting lured into these academy programs that don't have anywhere near the talent or opportunity Cummings does," I believe this kid was in residency and was signed by UCLA or UCSB. I assume you are not questioning the belief that most vast majority of kids in the Academy teams in Cal-South do not have this level of ability. The second quote was "They are getting fed dreams of being professionals and getting seen so they will get Division I scholarships that in reality are very scarce." Are you claiming the vast majority of Cal-South kids without a similar talent level that were persuaded to join the Academy teams this year have realistic goals of becoming professionals or getting a significant amount money for college? What little college scholarship money available for soccer ability (are you still arguing there is a lot of it?) that is out there will go to kids that can contribute whether they play on one of the Academy teams or not. Look at posts in the youth forum about Dallas cup. Most of these teams are not Academy teams yet the very best players there will get offers. Coaches out west where most of these kids will want to go to school will come to Surf, Nomads or catch a Premier league game. There is no realistic chance the many marginal players currently in the program will suddenly turn into marketable commodities with an extra practice with the same coaches that these clubs already had (and assuming these kids weren't already shelling out extra money for "privates"). There is no need for these kids to make weekend trips across the country to play a couple teams at the level they'd find in Cal-south or be forced to give up HS soccer if they really want to play. Please explain otherwise using anything besides your hopes and dreams to the contrary.
What percentage of Southern California high schools play soccer in the winter, and why couldn't Academy teams play soccer in the fall instead?
you guys should take a peek at this thread in the youth forum about the acadamy system: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=666431
From that article... "Neil Buethe, a spokesman for the U.S. Soccer Association that oversees the academy development program, said no more than six of 63 clubs in the national program prohibit high-school soccer."
Yes, minus the pejorative, that's pretty much what I'm doing. I'm arguing about what a program's impact would be if it worked somewhere close to how it was designed. Whereas you've prejudged whether it can, and the mental block has made you incapable of discussion the rest of the issue.
Fair enough. This seems quite a bit different than the discussion about the availability of money and professional opportunities available to kids in the program, but I'll accept it. Now the difference is that I see some fatal design flaws (variation across the US, expense, distance, resource availability) that will prevent it from working as "designed" while from my perspective you are just wishing these problems will go away without anyone addressing how to make them go away. What I believe is needed is an approach that maximizes the unique advantages we have in the US (innovation, diversity, player population, college and HS facilities) and minimizes the the disadvantages (immature soccer culture, small number of professional teams with very limited resources). To me people have taken the easy route - lets just be like the Euro's. As a result this unified, national top down approach modeled after less diverse, smaller countries with many wealthy professional teams and a strong culture minimizes our advantages and amplifies our challenges. We need solutions that will attract and consolidate all our best players and not disperse them like the current Academy system does. Solutions need to be ability based like Bradenton, not cost based like many clubs and leagues are. What is needed in Cal-South or TX-North is very different than what is needed in Mass or Minn. The latter areas lack the density and culture so maybe you need a semi-residency solution to and travel to get the density of good players and competition. For the latter, the density and culture exists instead what needs to be done is develop competition that rewards player development rather than wins.
That sounds about right -- build upon the existing systems in the densely populated areas, where soccer is already of a high quality. They don't need massive overhauls, except for arguably an infusion of different coaches but that is a different issue. They need tweaking. Somewhat fewer games, somewhat more training, somewhat more emphasis on development. Whereas in the less populated areas, greater changes need to be made, including as you write a semi-residency option. I absolutely agree that the U.S. needs its own solution, not one that simply grafts foreign ideas onto U.S. soil.
I don't think it's a given that this thing will work. But I don't accept an argument it won't based on it not having been born speaking in full sentences like the Buddha. I do recognize the importance of density. I do admire the density created in Southern California. I even think that perhaps the Fed should have created a system that is functionally different there than everywhere else, ebcause when you claim that SoCal provides a level of competition even a national program might not be able to exceed at reasonable cost, it's a claim I'm not prepared to dispute. But I don't think density will ever happen in 80+% of the country, and at some point we have to recognize that and simulate it as best we can, and this is going to involve some serious travel, some large-cale co-ordination, and therefore some very real applecart-upsetting. I'm hoping that over time this can be subsidized by sponsorships like the one Dick's Sporting Goods just announced with SUM/MLS/USSF: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=671614 Maybe American Airlines can get in on that act as well and directly subsidize air travel: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=673614 If not, someone is going to have to suck up the cost other than the parent, because if the parent is always fronting it, they'll be doing so at some level or another on the premise they might be buying little Johnny's way in to college, and that will mean there will always be some element of club hucksterism that was how the select teams were essentially born. But the one reasonable hope of this, for most of the country, is corporate sponsorship--this will never be a profitable stand-alone business. And the one reasonable hope for corporate sponsorship is some kind of large national "arrangement" that will motivate corporations to get involved.