Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

If the academy style was run as advertised, it would be a lot better.
My experience is that its a lie designed to suck people in with the promise of playing on better team if your child performs better, however, that rarely happens.

The basic math of the academy style doesn't work. There have to be the same number of kids moving up as moving down. The premise is that everyone is above average.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of guys who coach soccer spent so much of their lives working on one particular skill -- soccer -- and didn't pick up a lot of other skills, like people skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

If the academy style was run as advertised, it would be a lot better.
My experience is that its a lie designed to suck people in with the promise of playing on better team if your child performs better, however, that rarely happens.

The basic math of the academy style doesn't work. There have to be the same number of kids moving up as moving down. The premise is that everyone is above average.

We didn’t choose academy style for the possibility of moving up. We just wanted the same quality coaching and training the A team got. Personally, I had no illusions about the (in)frequency kids get invited to play up with another team. Plus, I think scrimmaging with the ‘better’ player in small side games at practice is much more valuable than the (likely) few minutes a kid playing up in a game would get on the field. But our club changed practices and there is one academy style practice for the A teams, and one for everyone else. For that set up, I agree cons of academy our weight pros.

Not sure how you protect against something like we experienced. We asked all the questions, got all the commitments in writing. People are leaving my club in droves so it will catch up with them. The club won’t care about losing all the kids but will miss the $$ they provide because they won’t be able to enter their favored teams in a zillion tournaments like they did this year (paid for by kids they have made clear they don’t give a crap about).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

If the academy style was run as advertised, it would be a lot better.
My experience is that its a lie designed to suck people in with the promise of playing on better team if your child performs better, however, that rarely happens.

The basic math of the academy style doesn't work. There have to be the same number of kids moving up as moving down. The premise is that everyone is above average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

If the academy style was run as advertised, it would be a lot better.
My experience is that its a lie designed to suck people in with the promise of playing on better team if your child performs better, however, that rarely happens.

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

Ummm...and you think it is better to string along 5 lower teams vs one B team? They don’t even know the kids names on the 6th team of a big club. Our big club had coaches coaching multiple teams and our B team was without a coach in the Finals of three tournaments because he chose to cia h his favored team instead. This problem is not unique to small clubs.

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.

Anonymous wrote:Never have been a fan of the "academy style". I think "academy style" is marketing for small clubs that want to have multiple teams without losing your 'B' players. They know exactly who they plan on playing on A and B on day 1. However, they string the B families along by giving them hope of making the 'A' team at some point. Let me tell you, there maybe 1 kid from the 'B' team that shifts to 'A' because someone is sick or someone on 'A' is struggling. Concept sounds good but it sucks to be on 'B' end. Don't expect much movement.