Depending on who you ask this academy concept is flourishing or failing.

I think it's mostly the former. Certainly it needs some tweaking. Clubs in Southern California for instance should probably be left to play among themselves and then go to the 2-4 showcases for recruiting purposes. But for the most the country it represents a very real upgrade from what we had before. I think we need to improve this idea, not scrap it.

What are some of the practical issues that need to be dealt with?

I think one of the practical issues that many clubs are facing is the financial burden placed on them due to the extensive traveling they are required to do. As mentioned in the previous post, there are enough teams in Southern California such that they don't have to travel up to Washington to play. Are there not any good teams close to Washington that are closer than Southern California? I would imaging this extensive traveling is worse in other parts of the country where teams are more spaced out, no?

The Academy League is in process. The concept behind the league is excellent. Giving the best players opportunity to play regularly in elite competition. This is the first season for this league to exist. The costs are high but the potential returns will be higher. As American soccer continues to develop it will be crucial that we have the Academy League in place or something similar that is represented by the Nations top teams. We need to put elite players in an environment where they can develop and train to reach the next level. If people give the Academy League a few years to develop I am sure that we will begin to recognize positive results in our National Teams as well as in the level of play throughout the US.

The most obvious issue that needs to be dealt with is the cost. Overall, our cost this year probably isn't going to be much more (if at all) than previous years when all is considered (RIIIPL, Super Y, ODP camp, tournaments, and state league games). We are lucky though in that our conference games are all drive-able. The cross conference games, on the other hand...$700 to play one game X 2 (player only - parents aren't traveling) is a bit much.

The good stuff: training (yes, it is different, even if same coach and many of the same kids), exposure (this has been HUGE, between the showcases and scouts coming to watch regular conference games), and the competition. The competition to a lesser extent, but that will improve each year the program grows.

What I have seen so far is that clubs are sticking to the minimum of training 3 times a week to meet the minimum requirements set for academy teams. I believe that our club culture and mind set still is totally focused on advancing to National Championship and never understanding or caring about the importance of quality training. Players at these age groups (91 and 89) in Europe are training 5 to 8 times per week. How could we ever hope to catch up when we are so arrogant to believe that we can develop players with 3 training sessions per week. I believe the Academy League is a great start but must require at least a MINIMUM of 4 trainings per week and more coaching clinics.

Odyssey4 wrote:

QUOTE:
I believe the Academy League is a great start but must require at least a MINIMUM of 4 trainings per week and more coaching clinics.

4 trainings per week as a general rule seems to be the norm that I've seen/heard about. However, with travel weekends resulting in 2 games, one on Sat and one on Sun, there have been weeks with only 3 training sessions. This is to give the players Monday off after playing the two games. Number of contacts per week (# games + # training sessions) almost always comes to at least 4, sometimes 5.