Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reign FC moving to Tacoma. What happens to Reign Academy?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    The cost is mostly in the travel. It is a problem that US Soccer made worse by creating the girl's DA because your club season is now longer which means more travel games.

    If all the value is in the training then there has to be a cheaper way to get in meaningful games. As it is right now, every away game (that is not to Portland) is about $300 to $500 per game.
    So if they practise 4 times a week and travelling all over the place for a hobby , when do they get time for school ?

    Comment


      #92
      http://www.espn.com/college-sports/s...candal-resigns

      The epidemic is real !

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        The cost is mostly in the travel. It is a problem that US Soccer made worse by creating the girl's DA because your club season is now longer which means more travel games.

        If all the value is in the training then there has to be a cheaper way to get in meaningful games. As it is right now, every away game (that is not to Portland) is about $300 to $500 per game.
        Paying almost 9K for training when playing time is critical for player development is insanity. The reign training alone will not help a player reach next level if you kid only gets 0 -20 min/game. Sounders invests 12K/yr in each player with a LOT more extras, like meals included on trips, a fulltime tutor/college advisor, etc, at no cost to parents. Of course girls DA is on a shoestring, but 8K for Reign shows how much parents' $ is funding the full progam...with Sounders Academy, your kid may not play all the time but they can do PT with local clubs to get that critical game experience and it's FREE. Reign also travels much more than the Sounders boys do -- RA players are missing all that school and incurring lots of travel expense whether they play or not

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Paying almost 9K for training when playing time is critical for player development is insanity. The reign training alone will not help a player reach next level if you kid only gets 0 -20 min/game. Sounders invests 12K/yr in each player with a LOT more extras, like meals included on trips, a fulltime tutor/college advisor, etc, at no cost to parents. Of course girls DA is on a shoestring, but 8K for Reign shows how much parents' $ is funding the full progam...with Sounders Academy, your kid may not play all the time but they can do PT with local clubs to get that critical game experience and it's FREE. Reign also travels much more than the Sounders boys do -- RA players are missing all that school and incurring lots of travel expense whether they play or not
          If the sounders really done it properly (which they should as there shouldn’t be any excuses) we can kill this pay to play nonsense once and for all ! If you tried to explain this situation to anyone outside of the US you would be laughed out of the room !! It’s madness .

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Paying almost 9K for training when playing time is critical for player development is insanity. The reign training alone will not help a player reach next level if you kid only gets 0 -20 min/game. Sounders invests 12K/yr in each player with a LOT more extras, like meals included on trips, a fulltime tutor/college advisor, etc, at no cost to parents. Of course girls DA is on a shoestring, but 8K for Reign shows how much parents' $ is funding the full progam...with Sounders Academy, your kid may not play all the time but they can do PT with local clubs to get that critical game experience and it's FREE. Reign also travels much more than the Sounders boys do -- RA players are missing all that school and incurring lots of travel expense whether they play or not
            If the Reign FC was generating the same type of revenue as the Sounders, then maybe the RA teams could be subsidized. You cannot compare the two academy systems without mentioning how the MLS academies are being funded.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              So if they practise 4 times a week and travelling all over the place for a hobby , when do they get time for school ?
              The vast majority of the players on the high level girls teams (all of which practice and travel about the same amount) are good students. They tend to compromise on other aspects of typical teenage life before school.

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Paying almost 9K for training when playing time is critical for player development is insanity. The reign training alone will not help a player reach next level if you kid only gets 0 -20 min/game. Sounders invests 12K/yr in each player with a LOT more extras, like meals included on trips, a fulltime tutor/college advisor, etc, at no cost to parents. Of course girls DA is on a shoestring, but 8K for Reign shows how much parents' $ is funding the full progam...with Sounders Academy, your kid may not play all the time but they can do PT with local clubs to get that critical game experience and it's FREE. Reign also travels much more than the Sounders boys do -- RA players are missing all that school and incurring lots of travel expense whether they play or not
                The Reign rosters (at least in the two older age groups) are small, and there really aren’t players who aren’t traveling or getting significant playing time. That’s a difference with xf— where some rostered players don’t travel. The Reign, unlike the Sounders, don’t have the luxury of having 40k paying customers and a decent tv deal (or even, like xf, the paying customers at summer tournaments and on lower level teams) to fund their operations. I’m not sure what if anything they can or will do to address that issue in the short term, or even if doing so is considered a priority.

                Comment


                  #98
                  I believe Reign DA had 9+ travel trips this year.
                  I heard that there might be close to 16 this next season.
                  My kid had like 4 travel trips including summer tournaments this year
                  and teachers were not happy. I can't imagine going 1-2 times a month.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    I believe Reign DA had 9+ travel trips this year.
                    I heard that there might be close to 16 this next season.
                    My kid had like 4 travel trips including summer tournaments this year
                    and teachers were not happy. I can't imagine going 1-2 times a month.
                    Teams in the middle age groups (which have an extra showcase) could have 9 trips if they make playoffs. Other age groups had fewer. A couple of the trips were in the summer, and some didn’t require missing any school. The notion of 16 trips is just made up.

                    Comment


                      ECNL teams in the older age groups travel to 3 showcases and a couple out of state league games during the school year. Just saying.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        The Reign rosters (at least in the two older age groups) are small, and there really aren’t players who aren’t traveling or getting significant playing time. That’s a difference with xf— where some rostered players don’t travel. The Reign, unlike the Sounders, don’t have the luxury of having 40k paying customers and a decent tv deal (or even, like xf, the paying customers at summer tournaments and on lower level teams) to fund their operations. I’m not sure what if anything they can or will do to address that issue in the short term, or even if doing so is considered a priority.
                        My kid used to play for the Reign. Not everyone gets siignificant playing time, especially at the showcase tournaments.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          My kid used to play for the Reign. Not everyone gets siignificant playing time, especially at the showcase tournaments.
                          Isn’t this true with most youth soccer teams? Players 1-6 play the most minutes, 7-12 more than half, 12-18 tend to play the least.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            My kid used to play for the Reign. Not everyone gets siignificant playing time, especially at the showcase tournaments.
                            One could quibble over what significant means, but I think they met us soccer’s 25% start guideline for all non-injured players and that players on the end of the bench were playing 1/2 of a lot of games and 1/4 to 1/3 of others. Exceptionally rare for a player not to get in a game or to play less than 15 minutes. That’s a pretty stark contrast with xf and other clubs that carry bigger rosters. But yes, it’s a competitive environment, there’s always a battle for playing time, and not everyone plays as much as they’d like.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              One could quibble over what significant means, but I think they met us soccer’s 25% start guideline for all non-injured players and that players on the end of the bench were playing 1/2 of a lot of games and 1/4 to 1/3 of others. Exceptionally rare for a player not to get in a game or to play less than 15 minutes. That’s a pretty stark contrast with xf and other clubs that carry bigger rosters. But yes, it’s a competitive environment, there’s always a battle for playing time, and not everyone plays as much as they’d like.
                              If you are not playing you can never improve . No matter how many cones you run around . If your kid is playing less ten 40% of the game on average you should be pulling them and putting them in a team where they will be getting game time . How could anyone pay to play and then not play ? That would be super weird .

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                If you are not playing you can never improve . No matter how many cones you run around . If your kid is playing less ten 40% of the game on average you should be pulling them and putting them in a team where they will be getting game time . How could anyone pay to play and then not play ? That would be super weird .
                                That depends. A kid on a team averaging 25% pt on the best team around might be in the best training and development opportunity for them, and might prefer battling for playing time on a team like that in training every day to being a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Some of the kids who don’t get as much playing time in younger ages end up being amongst the stronger players in older age groups. Sometimes perseverance and hard work is ultimately rewarded. Yanking a kid from a team solely because they are getting less than 40% pt in any given month or year seems short sighted and doesn’t necessarily teach the best life lessons.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X