Bio-banding rule to plays kids down

[Anonymous]

Really quick. Some of you are conflating Relative Age Effect (the selection of talent by relation to the beginning cutoff date for youth sports grouping) with biological maturity ( the maturation rate at which an individual reach full adult performance).

The biological maturation rate (age) directly affects not only physical attributes (height, force, oxygen), but psychological and emotional maturation. There are tests both hormonal and structural that help determine biological age. RAE is generally determined by the specific organizational structure around that sport, which does change based on culture/country.

Most studies find that during talent selection, there is a bias toward Q1 selection at the pre-puberty growth stage. This also relates to the biological maturation of the person. Since this skews selection, there have been efforts to combat the bias selection and allow players of talent but less biologically mature to play with players closer to their biological maturation.

Weather MLS next is applying it correctly, the goal I assume still attempts to account for the different maturation rates related to selection and performance.

On the other side, there has also been studies that show surviving RAE may provide even greater indication of skill/aptitude which means Q2, Q3, and Q4 selections if still engaged in the sport often can outperform early selections after adult maturation.

There is a lot to read on the subject if you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really quick. Some of you are conflating Relative Age Effect (the selection of talent by relation to the beginning cutoff date for youth sports grouping) with biological maturity ( the maturation rate at which an individual reach full adult performance).

The biological maturation rate (age) directly affects not only physical attributes (height, force, oxygen), but psychological and emotional maturation. There are tests both hormonal and structural that help determine biological age. RAE is generally determined by the specific organizational structure around that sport, which does change based on culture/country.

Most studies find that during talent selection, there is a bias toward Q1 selection at the pre-puberty growth stage. This also relates to the biological maturation of the person. Since this skews selection, there have been efforts to combat the bias selection and allow players of talent but less biologically mature to play with players closer to their biological maturation.

Weather MLS next is applying it correctly, the goal I assume still attempts to account for the different maturation rates related to selection and performance.

On the other side, there has also been studies that show surviving RAE may provide even greater indication of skill/aptitude which means Q2, Q3, and Q4 selections if still engaged in the sport often can outperform early selections after adult maturation.

There is a lot to read on the subject if you want.

This is an important distinction. Thanks for laying it out. The early selection of young kids for top teams (e.g. U11) allows those kids access to better training resources and coaching. And at those early pre-pubescent the biological age matters most to physical stature and maturity. Once the kids start hitting puberty, that is the more important factor in size and weight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

So the 5'10" kid bio-banding for Bethesda 2010s who was a starter on the 2009 MLS Next team and is scoring half the goals this year - is who the waiver system was designed for? Where is your island for sale?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

DP. The concept addresses both physical and mental maturity within the context of where the individual player is in terms of development. With regard to size, bio-banding uses projected stature at adulthood to assess the current biological age. It's possible that the 5'6 kid is going to be 6'5 and is still developing, whereas his 5'4 teammate went through puberty in 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding has nothing to do with birthdates. In fact, the concept of bio-banding underscores how ridiculous the birth year groupings can be. Just as you can plant three trees at the same time and expect them all to grow at different rates, so is the case for children. The problem is that our parents and coaches are not rational enough to be trusted with grouping in a fair way without standards such as birth years. So, that has become the norm. What has resulted is a greed...trying to find the early bloomers so you can hoist trophies, post them on Instagram, and wake up six years from now (hopefully) realizing how useless that was. In Europe it is common to have kids two or three years apart playing together. When they are ready to be moved up to the next age group, it happens - and most parents shut up about it. It's a shame that cannot happen here.

Not sure you grasp the Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding concept.
Also, you don't seem to have facts straight on the European system.

I wrote the comment above. My son bio-bands and has played in Europe. So, wrong and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our son is one of the few kids bio-banding in the DMV area. Over the last three years, he has played up a year (on a relatively weak ECNL team), on age, and down a year in MLS Next. Each year it was what was the best decision for his development and not about the prestige of the league, standings, etc. He is a late spring / early summer birthday but biologically at least two years behind his peers in size and puberty. From that standpoint, even when he's playing down a year, he's still the smallest kid on the field and, in essence, still playing up. When the system is applied correctly, it is an opportunity given to kids who have potential but lack the size for a fair fight - particularly in the years immediately following transition to full field. One thing that almost all involved with high level youth soccer will agree upon is the tendency to select larger athletic kids who can help a team win now. The US looks at raw athleticism while many other countries look for foot skills and soccer IQ. Not going to say which one is right, but I see fairly small rosters in Argentina, Brazil, and Italy with multiple World Cups and us with none. The US infatuation with size squeezes out the late developers who have the same and often greater up side than the early bloomers. Bio-banding is not without its flaws because there is so little structure, and the US has a rather antiquated club culture of cutting players off by 12/31 vs 1/1 birthdates. However, when applied correctly, it is a great course correction for what is a huge problem of fielding the biggest players coaches can find.

It's great to hear from someone whose child has had a positive experience with bio-banding. I have a kid whose soccer trajectory (and overall confidence) would have probably been different if he had the opportunity to play down with other skilled players who were closer to his biological age. With so much discussion about the lack of creativity in American players, there should be more focus on making sure that skilled players with high soccer IQs who might be late developers have opportunities to play on high-level teams. This also benefits early developers on the younger teams because it helps them understand the use of space, making runs, and problem solving that will help their development. I know from personal experience that putting a skilled and creative late developer on a B team doesn't work well.

I agree that it was great to get a report from the parent whose kid sounds like the poster child for a campaign to expand appropriately implemented bio-banding to more leagues.

I don’t think the bolded statement can be applied to all B teams, however. There are plenty of highly skilled B teams in this area with kids of all sizes. If the prior PP hadn’t mentioned her son’s background, I would have assumed she was talking about one of my son’s friends (who was tiny as a young child and now just small for his age) who is currently bio-banding. He’s has played for my son’s B team off and on over the years. It has always been a positive experience for him and for our boys. He gets to play more than he did on the A team before bio-banding and helps our team by opening up space and creating more opportunities for good runs and goals. As the veteran parents always note, every team is different and it’s not always easy to predict which ones will be great or poor fits for certain kids, but no one should be thinking that all B teams are filled with unskilled large athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

Pretty much nothing you said meets the academic or scientific definitions of RAE and Bio-banding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding has nothing to do with birthdates. In fact, the concept of bio-banding underscores how ridiculous the birth year groupings can be. Just as you can plant three trees at the same time and expect them all to grow at different rates, so is the case for children. The problem is that our parents and coaches are not rational enough to be trusted with grouping in a fair way without standards such as birth years. So, that has become the norm. What has resulted is a greed...trying to find the early bloomers so you can hoist trophies, post them on Instagram, and wake up six years from now (hopefully) realizing how useless that was. In Europe it is common to have kids two or three years apart playing together. When they are ready to be moved up to the next age group, it happens - and most parents shut up about it. It's a shame that cannot happen here.

Not sure you grasp the Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding concept.
Also, you don't seem to have facts straight on the European system.

I wrote the comment above. My son bio-bands and has played in Europe. So, wrong and wrong.

Where did your son play in Europe where kids are not in a system group defined by age/calendar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

So the 5'10" kid bio-banding for Bethesda 2010s who was a starter on the 2009 MLS Next team and is scoring half the goals this year - is who the waiver system was designed for? Where is your island for sale?

Bethesda would never allow something like that. They are about development, not winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

So the 5'10" kid bio-banding for Bethesda 2010s who was a starter on the 2009 MLS Next team and is scoring half the goals this year - is who the waiver system was designed for? Where is your island for sale?

Bethesda would never allow something like that. They are about development, not winning.

This reads like sarcasm, but as much as I have many complaints about Bethesda, they’ve always been about both development and winning, on the boys’ side at least. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing in general, though the situation with the tall bio-banded kid sounds frustrating and suspect, if true.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of solid information and personal experience in this thread. Thank you to those posters for taking the time. It is what makes this site valuable. My son plays for a U14 MLS Next squad and is in the 5th and 10th percentile nationally for height and weight (about 5' / 80 lbs). Those percentile ranks are probably 1 and 1 when compared to the kids in the league. While we haven't taken advantage of it, I think bio-banding and the original ideas behind it are valuable and useful. My son is a solid player and contributes at this level and in this age group, but it's certainly a struggle physically. It's hard to maintain confidence in the attack and have the courage to make hard challenges when so many of the opponents are approaching six feet and 140ish lbs. Every opponent has at least some kids that large and many other above average size players. Most also have some smaller players. It's the nature of the age group. It is also what makes Bethesda's abuse of the rule so infuriating to me. In other threads, people have called this "sore loser" talk. Maybe. I'll own that. Call it whining if you will, but it sucks to watch my undersize player work so hard to compete just to have others game the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding is a method by which players are grouped together based on their maturity and biological age rather than their birth year.

My understanding is that MLSN clubs use it? Which clubs? Do ECNL clubs use it as well?
What age does that start?
If you could please share any experience.
I’m sure some December birthday kids would benefit from that.
Thanks

I got this from another post:
MLS Next rules allow for 3 over-age players per team. It is called the "late developers" rule in MLS Next but is also referred to as bio-banding. The idea is to allow smaller kids who are late to puberty to play a year down until they catch up. At these years, there is a huge variability in height and weight and the rule is designed to encourage late developers to stick with the game. But, Bethesda abuses the rule for a competitive advantage by playing larger faster kids down.

Bethesda is misusing the bioband rule in the 2010 age group but using it correctly in the 2011 group. There was one, now two kids who technically skilled but very small. Not sure if the different usages are coincidence, difference in coaching, or what. But it's a shame to see them basically cheat in the 2010 age group.

If you're one of the Bethesda 2009 /10 parents, your kid is not physically delayed. They are being used to gain a competitive advantage. Look at the 2010/11 kid who bio-banded on Bethesda. Or, the one kid bio-banding with DCU. Both tiny and extremely skilled. That's the type of kids the program was designed for....not a 5'6" tall 15 year old who would be average sized in his own age group.

It is not about smaller kids. It is about muscle and bone development. It was not developed for tiny but skilled kids. It was developed for kids how show promise but a behind in terms of development. This would apply to a kid who had a big growth spurt.

DP. The concept addresses both physical and mental maturity within the context of where the individual player is in terms of development. With regard to size, bio-banding uses projected stature at adulthood to assess the current biological age. It's possible that the 5'6 kid is going to be 6'5 and is still developing, whereas his 5'4 teammate went through puberty in 6th grade.

There is an elaborate application/petitioning process, coupled with standard measures of biological age, that eliminate these possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of solid information and personal experience in this thread. Thank you to those posters for taking the time. It is what makes this site valuable. My son plays for a U14 MLS Next squad and is in the 5th and 10th percentile nationally for height and weight (about 5' / 80 lbs). Those percentile ranks are probably 1 and 1 when compared to the kids in the league. While we haven't taken advantage of it, I think bio-banding and the original ideas behind it are valuable and useful. My son is a solid player and contributes at this level and in this age group, but it's certainly a struggle physically. It's hard to maintain confidence in the attack and have the courage to make hard challenges when so many of the opponents are approaching six feet and 140ish lbs. Every opponent has at least some kids that large and many other above average size players. Most also have some smaller players. It's the nature of the age group. It is also what makes Bethesda's abuse of the rule so infuriating to me. In other threads, people have called this "sore loser" talk. Maybe. I'll own that. Call it whining if you will, but it sucks to watch my undersize player work so hard to compete just to have others game the system.

I should add that his parents are above average height and he is a true late developer. The official medical diagnosis is "late growth spurt."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of solid information and personal experience in this thread. Thank you to those posters for taking the time. It is what makes this site valuable. My son plays for a U14 MLS Next squad and is in the 5th and 10th percentile nationally for height and weight (about 5' / 80 lbs). Those percentile ranks are probably 1 and 1 when compared to the kids in the league. While we haven't taken advantage of it, I think bio-banding and the original ideas behind it are valuable and useful. My son is a solid player and contributes at this level and in this age group, but it's certainly a struggle physically. It's hard to maintain confidence in the attack and have the courage to make hard challenges when so many of the opponents are approaching six feet and 140ish lbs. Every opponent has at least some kids that large and many other above average size players. Most also have some smaller players. It's the nature of the age group. It is also what makes Bethesda's abuse of the rule so infuriating to me. In other threads, people have called this "sore loser" talk. Maybe. I'll own that. Call it whining if you will, but it sucks to watch my undersize player work so hard to compete just to have others game the system.

I should add that his parents are above average height and he is a true late developer. The official medical diagnosis is "late growth spurt."

Have you asked your club if he can be biobanded?