You are just pointing out a structural issue with this "academy" league -- it was based too much on existing club/league models and assumptions.
Development Academies should not be rostering teams for a season, but creating player training pools, from which teams are formed every weekend. Play well enough you make the first team, or even get rostered and train in an older age group. Do not keep up, get dropped to reserves (DPL) to get your playing time in. Dual age groups with first and reserve teams give everyone the chance to play. Then instead of 80 Academies, 30-40 would suffice. You might play each other regionally often, but those teams would change from week to week, and academies would schedule local games against non-academy competition (including colleges, semi-pro teams, ODP teams, top teams outside of the league). It is about elite player development, not team performance or league bias.
This would end the discussion and confusion about dual age groups, playing up, "bio banding" down, substition rules, outside play, HS, etc. US Soccer fails to see the irony in their prior claims that the ECNL was just a showcase league, hence why the needed to create a true Academy, and then they essentially copied the ECNL model (down to the number and many of the clubs they invited, the closed system, and the dates of the showcases/playoffs) made a few rule changes, and somehow think they re-invented youth soccer. I wish they had created a true alternative model/choice.
So no, I am not happy. I would like for our daughter's to have an alternative, not more of the same with different management.