An earlier poster talks about this as a freely made, either/or choice. Reality is, the either/or concept RESTRICTS kids from choosing a viable and BETTER third option: BOTH. Worse yet, it forces kids to choose between equally compelling loyalties, when there's absolutely no evidence that such a choice will yield a better player and/or person.
My experience with Academy is has been good, but not great. Question is, will a 10-month Academy schedule foster a better product -- the only LEGITIMATE reason for such a move -- or merely EXPAND the length of the existing product? Can anyone here answer that question with any authority?
My experience with high school is unique in that my son plays for one of a small handful of highly competitive high school programs in the state. Were that NOT the case, I might find 10-month Academy to be a more compelling option.
As it stands now, he does both and benefits from both. Why force him to choose? At the minimum, why not let kids ALREADY doing both to continue. Over a few years, you'd "graduate" the dual citizens, while gradually building existing Academy programs into a more self-sustaining position.
