SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Academy Players Can't Play High School Soon?

I guess I have not done a good job of making my point, but you have helped me make it on a couple of levels.
First and foremost, I don't want to come accross as attacking the Academy format. I do hope this model works.

As I have reviewed my posts,I realize I don't want to come accross as a "know it all negative" and I feel that I have.

Look at Dempseys story again. He wasn't recruited by the Texans, he was there watching his brothers tryout when he was noticed playing with a ball on the sideline.

Look at the ages of the players in your own post. They are basically 13-15 when they are exposed to elite club or Academy. My entire point is that all of these players developed probably 7-8 years playing what we might call "street ball" DAILY and that for us is IMO tough to overcome.

13 of the first 15 years of my life were spent in Scotland and Germany and the constant pick-up games going on everywhere(I mean literally everywhere) is what we are fighting here and my fear here is that we may never catch up.

But when you look at the rest of the world and look at their 2nd and 3rd choices in the sports world, I think you have part of the answer. Rugby, cricket, a smattering of Formula 1. I will have to say basketball is starting to come on in certain parts of Europe.

We have so many good and popular sports here in the US, that I realize soccer will never be number one or even two and many of you are right--funding is inadequate.

In short, we do have to do something. I do hope Academy will help develop future US stars and was wrong to attack this attempt.

The simple fact of the matter is that Dempsey, Murray, Mathis,Donovan etc are anomalies in the sport. Most of the best athletes in the US choose the so called "glamour" sports. Could you imagine if Cam Newton had been trained as a soccer player, or Dwayne Wade or Derrick Rose.
Another problem is organized soccer the way it is set up here - like the academy system- we are so caught up with putting the same ages together which causes little or no true development. I visited Liverpool with my son when he was 13. They told him that he was a good as any 13 year old they had seen but said if he stayed in the US he would stagnate. They told us that all of the EPL talent that is identified at an early age NEVER plays with their age, they play against men who are 4,5,6 years older than them. That is why 18 year olds from Europe and South America can compete at such a high level at an age when our best are playing in High School. The Liverpool Academy team made up of 16 and 17 year olds visited here and destroyed a team made up of college stars from Furman,Clemson and USC.
To get a real feel for how poor our development of players is here look at the womens game. We once dominated the game but other countries are quickly catching us. The reason, women in other countries didnt play organized soccer, now that they are and are adopting the training and development of their mens teams they are catching up and passing us. Is any American woman as good as Marta?
Until we can convince a larger number of talented athletes to play soccer and adjust our methods to allow our players to play up not just one age group but several we will always lag behind the rest of the world

Personally I have a neutral attitude about the academy program. It’s the latest attempt to get the US up to speed in soccer, much like attempts to do the same with education. I’d like to see it work and the US have better players. I worry, however, that by U-14 the damage is already done, and by U-16 certainly so; that is, lack of technical skills and using them at the right times. That’s where the US lags, in my opinion. I’d argue American players know the game just as well as anyone else, thanks in part to “FIFA” video games and a high ratio of matches kids play with their clubs. I can’t help but wonder if we need to focus the developmental part on younger kids. This sentiment was echoed by Tony Dicicco recently: http://www.examiner.com/soccer-in-nation...cer-development
There is an interesting editorial by Jay Martin in the latest issue of The Soccer Journal, the publication of the NSCAA, in which he outlines the “good, bad and ugly” of the academy program. I tried to find a link to it but couldn’t. Maybe someone else can.
High school soccer isn’t going away, and most high school coaches who supposedly aren’t developing players are the same ones who suddenly know what they are doing while they train clubs. It’s too bad the approach of USSF has been ambivalent about working with schools in the first place. Most kids go to elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. Kids could be identified earlier and tracked by PE departments working with clubs maybe. I don’t know – I’m just free associating here so know that before one of the know-it-alls jumps all over me. Just trying to figure a way to expose ALL kids to soccer earlier, cheaper, and with something more driven by development than profit motive. Wouldn’t a high school coach be interested in identifying all the potential players in their district and having a hand in their development? I know I would. Just as most want their kids playing as often and at the highest levels as possible.
Good point on the economic cost of academy too. There’s an interesting chapter regarding poverty and soccer in England in Soccernomics (http://www.amazon.com/Soccernomics-Australia-Turkey---Iraq--Are-Destined/dp/1568584253/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306460056&sr=1-1) that analyzed the occupations of England’s national team players and how there appears to be a correlation between poor parents and winning versus middle class and losing.
Again, not being critical, although I will throw it out there that I’m not sure I could afford for my daughter to play academy, and I know my parents wouldn’t have been able to back in the day – though I would have loved the chance to play it. Most of the kids I know who are or have played Academy are from fairly well-to-to families.

Interesting point about the money side, I am sure there are some kids playing that are on scholarship, but how many of those are just average players, or below average with a lot of athleticism? What is the criteria for scholarship? How is the academy finding these players and inviting them into the program? I guess what I am saying and TR alluded to it is this, there are a lot of kids out there who could play academy but they know they don't have the money, how do you find those kids and parents? Are coaches making a watch list of kids at u-11 though u14? Is that group even targeted?

I am just asking questions that is all, not attacking so please just let those who can answer them do so Thanks

It's the chicken or the egg debate..
Did the Academy make the players or the players make the academy?
Do coaches have to get a special certification to coach in this academy?
Are these coaches in these academy "full time" coaches or are they like most of us that work day jobs and coach in the evening hoping to break even and do it for the love of the game?

Alister, as I said my son plays on a NC Academy team. Coaches of u16 teams in NC:

CASL Chelsea - Head coach of UNC
NC Fusion(Greensboro) - Asst head coach of Elon
CSA - Head coach of UNC Charlotte
North Meck - Asst head coach of Davidson

I would agree that money is an issue Would be sweet if it were free. Not sure if that would really draw in the masses, as by definition...this isn't for the masses. If a kid is a great player.....he'll have a spot on an Academy team, regardles of his parents finances. I see it on my sons team.

I am surprised at the fact that college coaches have the time to coach these club teams. I played at a small Division II school and it seemed like the 5 wins we averaged per year was a fully time job and commitment.

That is great that they can bring in those calibar coaches. I bet is it is a great recruiting tool for them.

Thank you Big Daddy for all of the information. As I mentioned a few times, I have been out of the club game for several years.

Sorry to everyone for being over passionate/ over bearing on the matter.

But this thread isn't meant to be about American soccer culture, which is what it is. Nor is it meant to be about why so many great young American athletes appear to prefer basketball or football to soccer. Nor is it meant to be about financial limitations that some may confront when trying to progress in this sport.

The thread is about.....given our culture at large, USSF is focussing on Academy as the primary means of identifying and developing top young players. And within that system after 4 years there appears to be momentum towards making Academy essentially a year round sport, meaning HS soccer will be a conflict for the Academy player.

Is that move good or bad for the player? And what is the impact on HS soccer.

I'll argue that its good for the player.....and by and large will have little impact on HS soccer in general, other than at the Meccas of hs soccer like Wando and Irmo, where they may lose a handful of starters and leaders.