An in-depth look at IMG Academy from the Baton Rouge Advocate
February 15th, 2016 at 9:45 AM ^
February 15th, 2016 at 9:39 AM ^
This is the inevitable march of capitalism. Surprised it took this long. "Product differentiation" theory says that someone is going to market their HS to footballs players with cash to match their desire. Private schools (eg catholic schools) already do that at the HS level--Paul IV or Dematha are DC-area examples for hoops. But IMG just seems to be taking it to another level, and was founded not by someone with an educational background but a sports background. So to me, its the inevitable result of an entrpreneur selling in a liquid market.
Whether the NCAA should allow it is another matter. But if we are heading someday to a world of paid college athletes--and we ARE--then IMG is sort of a stepping stone to that. Or, it might get swept aside if minor league football (whether at colleges or not) start appearing.
In the short term, I wonder why IMG doesnt have a contract with ESPN. That would be some cash
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 10:09 AM ^
Enfield Tennis Academy anyone? John Wayne, what do you think? Orin? Any thougths? Someone check with little Mario.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:27 AM ^
February 15th, 2016 at 10:41 AM ^
I thought Julliard was a college? From their website it looks like they have programming for pre-college students, but it appears to be on Saturdays rather than a full-time college prep program.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
I was a classically trained musician as a kid, from when I was 5 until I was about 15. I did the summer camps, played in symphonies on the weekends, took private lessons, practiced every day, the whole bit.
That was not the same thing as a sport. I'm sorry. I played sports, too. It just isn't. No one was ever whisking me off to shangri-la in Florida promising to turn me into a musician capable of making the New York Philharmonic.
And Juilliard is a college, not a high school.
February 15th, 2016 at 9:43 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 5:31 PM ^
If worms had machine guns...
February 15th, 2016 at 10:01 AM ^
Sure it is, for a glorified diploma mill.
"A student’s schedule at IMG is split into two parts: academics (usually three periods from 7:45 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.) and athletics (1:20 p.m. to 6 p.m.)."
So in other words, these academic all-stars spend at least half of every school day doing what they're there for in the first place: their sport. The academic part of my high school day sure as hell didn't end at lunch, and my day had more than three classes.
It's true that parochial schools have been recruiting kids forever, but at least parochial schools exist primarily for the educational component. IMG exists for one reason and one reason only: to profit from the insane world of professional sports, which is what's driving every one of these parents. The notion that academics at IMG are anything more than bare minimum lip service is not believable.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:22 AM ^
Hours were 8:00 am to 3:00 pm with a lunch hour, a mandatory unsupervised study hall, and a gym class. I'm not seeing a lot of difference there. I think the article also said that at IMG there was a supervised study time in the evening until 9:00 pm. That would make it a LOT tougher than the Birmingham School District. Eastern Christian Academy might be a diploma factory, but this IMG school may be the real deal.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 10:38 AM ^
'hours spent focusing on academics'.
'Chair in a classroom' might be part of it. But parts might be labs, studies, etc. Just depends on the curriculum.
There are some really fascinating curriculums out there now that don't entail just sitting in a chair in a classroom. But all of them require some block of time.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:19 AM ^
I side with most of your post, though I think that academic schedule is not as bad as you think it is.
Three 90 minute classes is equivalent to six 45 minute classes, from a minute standpoint, which is a traditional schedule.
It looks like they cram it in before lunch, which is fine. It goes against research saying the teenage brains aren't ready to engage at their full cognitive potential until 9 or 10am, but all schools ignore that.
In fact, as an educator, I'd much rather have block schedules than meet daily for 45 minutes. Every other day for 90 minutes is far superior. You throw a 5 minute break in the middle and in 85 minutes you can accomplish so much more than you can in two 45 minute period.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:35 AM ^
My wife loved block scheduling, and courses where the math and chem teachers could collaborate.
Unfortunately parents didn't always like it (too different) and up here, we have a school with a great arts program that has unfortunately often warped the normal school schedule to fit its needs.
So lots of great initiatives that had shown some promise went out the window because the chorale couldn't have its daily practice during school hours.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:49 AM ^
It would be really interesting to learn how the scheduling works in practice. I can see the early morning classes actually providing a fair amount of time for academics, and the students also have the study hall in the evening. But a huge chunk of the day is taken up by athletic activities. If these are rigorous practices and condtitioning, are the kids really able to function in the evening study hall?
Again, it is probably not possible for any of us to know if the academic activities are serious or if they are window dressing. But I think Don's concern is valid. If the academy exists primarily--almost exclusively--with the goal of athletic prep, can we feel confident that they are going to make sure that minimal academic goals are achieved? If my kid were going there I would certainly wonder about that.
(By contrast: I live in the Northeast, and we are surrounded by fairly intense and expensive prep schools. My impression is that they often have good athletes but they also provide a high-quality education. Here again, though--my knowledge is limited.)
February 15th, 2016 at 10:45 AM ^
You can properly educate students on a half-day schedule, or you can fail to educate students on an all-day 7 days a week schedule. The schedule alone won't tell us.
The key is the academic accreditation in both word and deed. How well is IMG educating its high school students? Aren't there independent tests and metrics that measure this for any accredited private high school?
I would guess that the average D1 prospect that comes out of IMG is far better educated than the average D1 prospect that comes out of a "regular" school. But that's just a guess. There should be some metrics somewhere that say for sure.
If IMG is not failing on the academic side, I can't necessarily criticize them for their proficiency on the extracurricular side, any more than I could a Performing Arts magnet school.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:52 AM ^
Good point. My own guess is that they might not be better educated in a holistic sense (if we even know what that means), but they might actually be better prepared for the sort of educational experience that they will have in college if they do end up playing DI football. In other words, a schedule like this (morning block classes, afternoon practices, and study hall with dedicated tutors) sounds an awful lot like what they would do in college.
I'm not sure that this is the best model for students to really *learn,* but if the goal is to perform well enough in class to graduate and remain eligible it seems to work.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:30 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
But HS taught me how to discipline myself, how to study, and how to regulate my time.
Slit of the courses gave me a logical toolbox with which to do analysis.
I honestly got less of that in college. SNRE wasn't great for that. It was very strong in specific roles but I don't use them.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 10:58 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^
Not sure where you went to High School, but it was sure different than mine. I went to a large public school - Ann Arbor Huron - which for the base classes were essentially warehousing 10% of the student population who had no desire to be there. In American History I had a kid seriously ask "how could a shot be heard all around the world?"
Now the top end classes were very tough with all of the professors kids raising the bar - getting into Michigan was for the dumb kids like me - they were going to Harvard, MIT, etc.
I can't say I go much out of High School except for one class - Humanities which covered Art, Music, Philosophy and History - one of the most challenging classes I had in high school or college.
February 15th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^
And your mileage may vary. I'm sure there were guys there who skated through too. I wasn't one of the real smart ones, more of a nose to the grindstone guy.
Alot of HS is what you put into it, I think. I was very highly motivated at CC. I was actually less motivated at Michigan. SNRE wasn't my cup of tea, but neither was LSA, Biz, etc.
But yeah, that's where I got most of my study/discipline skills. I had one class simply labled 'Social Justice' where the priest was just freakin' brilliant. We discussed religion, logic, the intuition of personhood, etc. and how that all applied to society.
Great for arguments (he'd let us bring up almost anything) but most of the times he'd cut your argument to ribbons.
But academics were really emphasized there. The thinking ( I had a few teachers say this) that it was my job, and I was supposed to do well.
February 15th, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^
Alot can depend on the parents. I believe this more firmly since my wife is a teacher.
I'm guessing Mr. Gary would have done fine at IMG if only because his Mom would have pushed him very hard. Or not sent him there if she didn't think the academics measured up.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:32 AM ^
with parochial school recruiting is exactly like public school recruiting in school of choice. You see the coaches going to a kid and selling the school 'We have a great Scimatech program! I see you like robots! And you can play football for us!'.
Honestly, that doesn't bother me in the least. I went to a parochial school and generally had 3 hours of homework a night. The schools up here can be very good too, and the coaches are generally on top of their kids academic performance.
These academies really worry me.
I love football, but this craziness at the lower levels is bordering on mania.
February 15th, 2016 at 11:16 AM ^
Don - good point. However when I was at Ann Arbor Huron much of the class day was wasted by fuckups who were only taking up space until the day ended - except AP classes and Humanities. No politics - but there was a real reluctance to discipline or jettison problem students in my day. As a senior I had half days since I already had enough credits to graduate. If I actually had 4 hours of challenging classes a day that would have been more than I got in my 7 hours of school time.
Not defending the model, just saying duration is not a good measure of quality when it comes to public schools. Can't speak for private schools.
February 15th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^
have serious systemic issues, from budgeting to infrastructure to teacher quality to a complete and total lack of meaningful discipline, and all these issues contribute to an understandable desire for parents of all income and ethnic backgrounds to get their kids into private schools.
I'm just skeptical that a private academy that exists solely to train teenagers for professional athletic careers will do anything more than the minimum academically.
This information is unlikely to be available, but I wonder how many IMG kids fail courses or are booted out for academic non-performance.
My high school experience was very likely atypical, but I didn't have any courses in which I could just coast and get a grade good enough to maximize my college choice goals.
February 15th, 2016 at 10:25 AM ^
I agree with the comments that this is not much different than private acadamies to serve arts, science, business, or anything else. If a kid's goal is to early enroll, play three years, then go pro, $73k may not be a bad investment if you have a chance to practice with elite coaches and athletes and the best facilities. That may mean better scholarship offers, earlier playing time, and potentially higher draft stock.
Why limit the ways athletes can choose to train? I am sure a lot of these guys don't mind missing their senior year or missing the chance to play for a state title because they have bigger goals and this may give them an edge. The only issue I have is the ridiculousness of college recruiting possibly jumping down to junior and seniors in high school recruiting.
February 15th, 2016 at 12:01 PM ^
Does IMG only play schools out of state? Curious if they practice year long.
February 15th, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 15th, 2016 at 2:18 PM ^
No, they play both in-state and out-of-state schools. They had two FL schools on their schedule last year, two from Texas, three NJ, one Louisiana, and one from Maryland.
February 15th, 2016 at 2:47 PM ^
Im guessing they dont belong to a league or play in the florida state playoffs, playing only out of state games they'd clasify as exhibition which is how they get around practicing year round.
February 15th, 2016 at 2:56 PM ^
That's my understanding of it. The article had a section that adressed the issue (read it this morning and don't remember the exact details), but you basically summed it up. They don't compete in the playoffs and can't "recruit" FL kids. That's appears to be how they were allowed and remain in the FHSAA.
February 15th, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^
Great article. Thanks for posting. Knew of IMG, especially with tennis... but didn't realize that football was that new. Michigan has yet to get a recruit from there.
February 15th, 2016 at 12:26 PM ^
IMG Academy 2017 recruits:
2 5-Stars
10 4-Stars
3 3-Stars
For 2018 they have 2 5-stars so far.
February 15th, 2016 at 1:01 PM ^
I brought this up in a thread a couple weeks ago. IMG is the biggest sports and entertainment management agency in the world and they have doubled down on their future by offering talented and gifted athletes a chance to hone their craft at one of the best facilitties money can buy.
It's a great opportunity, especially for those freakish athletes whose family could never afford to pay tuition at a school like this. Face it, It's Cranbrook giving to the needy but with a goal in mind at the end.
Yes, there is a goal. Planting the seed that "in exchange for the $75,000/year in education I can persuade you to stay loyal to the IMG brand and when you're ready to sign those contracts for 10, 20-100 million dollars you dont forget about your new friends who helped you get there.
Oh yes, this is where the kids are introduced to quid pro quo and loyalty to your biggest benefactors is indoctrinated into their minds. Oh, the bagman wears a disguise in this one.
If I sound cynical its because all too often we hear how great colleges are for giving Shaquille O'Neal a chance to play ball and recieve a free education and how lucky he should feel, when really everybody knows he would have done very well for himself with or without LSU and in fact LSU probably benefited more from him.
Lets call a spade a spade. If I used my philantropic ambition to build an athletic complex and make financial contibutions to King, Cass Tech or Country Day's football teams and particularly to the most talented athetes, with the goal in mind that they sign with my law firm/agency, when its time to go pro, Who am I kidding?
I sign a contract for 20% of the kids 10 million and I gave him a $70K/year education, (which by the way didn't really cost me 70K), and I get a piece of the top 5-15 players every year? Most of you say I'm the greatest thing to ever happen to them. Maybe it's the other way around.
February 15th, 2016 at 1:54 PM ^
February 15th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^
Can someone explain what the difference between IMG Academy and Eastern Christian Academy is? They both seem to be football teams with a high school.
February 15th, 2016 at 2:18 PM ^
I believe at the end of it all, there's a sports agent waiting on the athlete to repay his debt by signing an agency agreement to be represented while he plays professional sports, Of course there's indoctrination of the IMG brand that compels a player to sign because he's more comfortable and familiar with the brand.
It's long term and calculated but I bet it produces results.
February 15th, 2016 at 2:21 PM ^
So at ECA there is no agent involved. Those kids just wake up and do online classes in the morning then train for football in the afternoon and since there is no sports agent it makes it ok?
February 15th, 2016 at 4:02 PM ^
I personally think that when an agent is involved it makes you think there is a quid pro quo going on. Even though its not going to happen until 4-5 years later.
Society already believes that there is a risk of indoctrination with kids on the high school level, just like with religious practices and teachings.
Not that I have anything against religion or great schools but lets see this for what it really is instead of calling it sme benevolent gesture with no intent. Why do you think ECA is doing it?
I know why IMG does it.
February 15th, 2016 at 3:17 PM ^
I visited IMG as part of my Sport Psych grad program. It's very difficult to get in the doors, as it's a well-protected gated community. But we got to spend a weekend there, see what they do, explore, and take it all in.
They have an in-depth sport psychology/mental skills training program that everyone participates in once a week, at least. It's really unheard of at that level, and a great opportunity to expose athletes to the benefits of a mental skills training program. They even have a vision training protocol that the kids do, as well as professional players from all different sports (I scored above an MLB pitcher but significantly below an NFL QB.
We also got a chance to view the academic side. It is true that it's a training facility with a school attached. Classes are after a full day of training, conditioning, and practice. Their life, while there, is sports. That's why they charge so much, and why people pay it. They give you the best chance you can get to become an elite athlete.
Their facilities are unmatched. They have a Gatorade Sport Science Institute, where they perform cutting edge research in sport and exercise. Their weight rooms are incredible, and their tennis courts/golf course/sports fields are professional quality. The quality of instruction is so good that daily they have some of the world's best athletes coming in to train. MLB, NFL, NBA players, not to mention the golf and tennis. When I was there 3 of the world's top 25 tennis players were there practicing.
During the visit, one of the mental skills coaches told me that something like 90% of attendees get D1 scholarship offers, or go pro right out of school (where they can do so, in sports like golf and tennis). Granted, there is a bit of a selection bias from their recruiting. But it's the paying students that keep the lights on there. There are enough of those, especially in tennis and golf, to keep it running. And the 90% success rate includes them.
February 15th, 2016 at 4:32 PM ^
How much do you think the IMG and it's brand is worth? (Billions)
How much do you think it takes to keep the lights on? (low Millions)
Do you seriously think IMG has any problems keeping the lights on without the "paying" customers? (absolutely not)
Since golfers and tennis players can go pro directly from H.S. it stands to reason that they meet prospective agents during their H.S. careers? (yes in H.S.)
I'm sure other agents/agencies arent welcomed on campus to court the next Tiger Woods or Venus and Sarena Williams. IMG has to protect their investment. The whole psychology of sports piece you did sounds a little wierd and makes you think about influencing the future decisions of impressionable minds. It seems calculated and with one goal in mind. Sign here
They have a hell of a business model set up to produce the top talent and since they retain their loyalty they probably sign with their agents. Dont hate the player hate the game!!!!!
February 15th, 2016 at 7:24 PM ^
First, I don't believe IMG Academy is for the athletes at all. I'm not naive. It's obviously a business venture, and they don't deny it. But they do give their athletes the best chance at success, which is why they can claim the 90% figure. We all know how unreliable rankings can be, but they are able to get the most out of the athletes that attend there. That point cannot be denied.
Secondly, your ignorant and ridiculous criticism of my field is uninformed and lazy. How about you try to learn about something (to wit, a growing field of academic study) before you claim that it is "calculated with one goal in mind." Sport psychology works with athletes of all levels (I preferred the work with kids, where they can apply the skills outside of the sport domain) and is focused on improving performance, and has a total focus on the athlete and team.
Sport psychologists work with fields ranging from sports, dance, academia, military, police, business, and any other field that requires "performance." How about you read something, anything, about it before talking about it. For example, even reading Wikipedia (we all know how thorough that is) gives you a better idea of what we do than whatever misinformation you can concoct. APA (yes, the American Psychological Association) explains further.
For those interested, here is another article about the Seahawks, who have been working with a Sport Psychologist for years.
February 15th, 2016 at 7:58 PM ^
Musicians have been using sports psychoogy for decades. I read tons of sports psychology books, as well as books that used the same ideas directly for musicians, all the time when I was doing tons of auditions and such.
February 16th, 2016 at 5:45 AM ^
Well somebody sure got your panties in a bunch. Since you wrote this check lets see if your behind can cash it.
I don't believe I in no way insulted you, nor did I say anything negative about your profession. My peice was about IMG and the business model that provides a service to youth who can't afford it, in exchange for something in the future. Your comments about me being ignorant and lazy, are just that, without putting my comments into context.
If you had read the title of the blog you would see that it's not about sports psychology, its about IMG and not everybody cares about your profession/job/studies, you self absorbed prik. I'm not so ignorant that I dont see the utility of psychology in sports for ADULTS but that wasn't the point of my comments. More particularly, I said it was weird that psychologists were being used for KIDS. I think you took offense to that because I said it and some might find it (as I do) wierd to have trained psychologist's tinkering in the heads of KIDS, for a purpose like football (even if you think it isn't).
As a parent, I would want to know why psychologists had to be used on my KID and gaining a competitive edge might not be enough to justify toying with his young mind, if he isn't broken. Moreover, the choice would ultimately lie with me until he reaches the age of majority. Maybe he's perfect already and he doesn't need you tinkering in his head like Jose Delgato or Robert Heath.
Having taken quite a few psychology courses in undergrad I know how delicate a line it is to walk when you take into context the whole IMG business model, (as I presented it). I'm not sure as a professional you appreciate that risk quite the way I do. There is a question of undue influence on his future decisions, changing a kid for the worse and professional ethics to consider.
And you called me ignorant and lazy . . .
February 16th, 2016 at 2:48 PM ^
Your point was uninformed and lazy, not you. It was not a personal attack, but I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit (see that? That was a personal attack. Consider it even after the "prik" comment (it's spelled "P-R-I-C-K", by the way)).
You said "The whole psychology of sports piece you did sounds a little wierd and makes you think about influencing the future decisions of impressionable minds. It seems calculated and with one goal in mind. Sign here." That is absolutely a negative comment on my field, and assumes our professional interest lies in the good of someone other than the athlete. The first tenet of our work is the athlete comes first.
I'm well aware this is a sports blog. I've been coming to MGoBlog since 2006. What makes this place great is the wide range of areas of knowledge from contributors. Everyone brings something different. I was trying to share some knowledge that I posess that some might find interesting. I couldn't care less if you don't find it interesting. Move along.
Your "quite a few psychology courses in undergrad" make you no more informed than watching "a few fotball games" make me equipped to discuss football with a real coach. But I guess we're all armchair quarterbacks, so it makes sense that you place yourself in a position of knowledge, when you have absolutely none. The internet makes us all geniuses.
I don't care if you care about my profession/job/studies. I do care that you're trashing an entire field based on your ignorant notion of it. Wouldn't you expect someone from literally ANY field to defend their field when someone makes false assumptions and attempts to spread misinformation about the work they do.
Since you obviously didn't do the research I suggested, let me inform you, so that maybe you can stop spreading your bullshit "knowledge" any further. Sport psychologists (also known as mental skills coaches, performance coaches, etc, are more than just a "shrink." They actually refer out to a licensed psychotherapist for real issues, unless they have their clinical degree. They have an ethical obligation to not "tinker with a kids brain." Our focus is on performance.
Instead, they teach them skills such as goal setting, leadership, stress management, visualization and imagery, grit, mental toughness, motivation, overcoming adversity, relaxation, mindfullness, communication, teambuilding and cohesion, overcoming injuries, and countless other topics. Which, as I said, is why I preferred working with kids. We also train cognitive processes of sport (how to better learn, recall, and utilize information). Things that they can use in academia, sports, music, art, business, and anywhere else they have to perform.
I was calling your response ignorant and lazy, but after reading your rebuttal, I may have given you too much credit. I feel bad that your kids have a parent that is willing to make decisions that could impact them in life based on ill-formed ideas based on contrived "knowledge." Please teach them to do some research before jumping to conclusions and talking about something they know nothing about.
February 16th, 2016 at 5:41 PM ^
Why would anyone pay that kind of money? You can attend any University in the nation for less money then that and if a kid is good enough to play football there, he's going to get a scholarship to play somewhere as it is, without going there. That is just crazy, if I'm paying that my kid better have a degree when done and not just a High School Diploma.