ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

The difference in biobanding can be up to 23 months. For example a January born 2010 plays on my son’s Dec 2011s MLSN team.

Do you think it's unfair? If the kid is the same size/soccer development stage, why not OK? Is the kid much more advanced on other aspects of the game (mental, strategy)?

With that argument why have age groups at all? Also I was just pointing out the facts about biobanding. Who am I to determine what is fair or unfair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

The difference in biobanding can be up to 23 months. For example a January born 2010 plays on my son’s Dec 2011s MLSN team.

Do you think it's unfair? If the kid is the same size/soccer development stage, why not OK? Is the kid much more advanced on other aspects of the game (mental, strategy)?

He takes the spot of another 2011. He takes away the game time from that 2011 team. I think it is not fair. Most players are ordinary players for the pay-to-play MLSN clubs with a $4k club fee. There is no point in having a biobanding rule, hoping an elite player will emerge. It is not fair to the paying parents.

I see and understand those points -- which often also are raised when players play up as well. All I'd say is to also look at it from that family perspective. Those are parents who paid, too, and from a development standpoint, it seems like he's a better fit with your kid's team vs. any 2010 option, where he probably was unfairly pummeled and might just give up the sport otherwise despite maybe having some amazing qualities. And perhaps he helps your kid get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

Another discussion on RAE is what this forum needs to get to 1000. Keep it up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

Another discussion on RAE is what this forum needs to get to 1000. Keep it up!

Honestly I think you need to worry more about competing threads ... All the talk about ECNL/GA switches could spell doom here, especially if we get a definitive answer on SY/BY soon.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know when US Soccer will put this website out with all the details?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know when US Soccer will put this website out with all the details?

They said after their AGM which runs through this weekend.

[Anonymous]

The US Soccer AGM is Feb 27-March 2. So, any time now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

It was not even a real option. The choices weren’t SY/BY/GY? It was SY/BY/other and director could write in what they thought would be a better way.

I don’t even want GY but it wasn’t event given a chance as a real option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

The difference in biobanding can be up to 23 months. For example a January born 2010 plays on my son’s Dec 2011s MLSN team.

Do you think it's unfair? If the kid is the same size/soccer development stage, why not OK? Is the kid much more advanced on other aspects of the game (mental, strategy)?

He takes the spot of another 2011. He takes away the game time from that 2011 team. I think it is not fair. Most players are ordinary players for the pay-to-play MLSN clubs with a $4k club fee. There is no point in having a biobanding rule, hoping an elite player will emerge. It is not fair to the paying parents.

I see and understand those points -- which often also are raised when players play up as well. All I'd say is to also look at it from that family perspective. Those are parents who paid, too, and from a development standpoint, it seems like he's a better fit with your kid's team vs. any 2010 option, where he probably was unfairly pummeled and might just give up the sport otherwise despite maybe having some amazing qualities. And perhaps he helps your kid get better.

What does that mean from a development standpoint? Should we make a separate league for all the athletic kids and non athletic kids regardless of skill,IQ or technical ability.
Just because a kid is small doesn’t mean it’s fair to move them down an age group. Otherwise why have a system based on age at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

With a GY switch for showcases I doubt we would see more than 3 GY kids playing anyways very few people hold their kids back. Is your issue that they are older and “possibly” bigger?

I think biobanding and GY are both dumb and you could easily justify them both using your logic.

They both produce the same product of an older kid being put with younger kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know when US Soccer will put this website out with all the details?

They said after their AGM which runs through this weekend.

Yes, the AGM runs from February 27th to March 2nd.

https://www.ussocceragm.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn’t be possible. That’s why grad year can’t happen.

Biobanding is worse the GY because you have the same problem of way older kids without them actually in the same grade.

Not sure being in the same grade helps in this case, except for the older kid. With GY, you could be an early summer b-day, a foot taller and it's OK, which wouldn't be true with biobanding.

Bigger doesn’t mean better

No, but it's often a signal, as well as other athletic characteristics associated with an age advantage that lead to more playing time and attention that over time makes the oldest of any age group the most common (See RAE). So, going with GY just introduces a pathway to problems more than any other option -- which is why it was among the LEAST popular in the survey they did.

Another discussion on RAE is what this forum needs to get to 1000. Keep it up!

Honestly I think you need to worry more about competing threads ... All the talk about ECNL/GA switches could spell doom here, especially if we get a definitive answer on SY/BY soon.

My God, you're right. EVERYONE - IGNORE THE OTHER THREADS! THEY'RE USELESS TROLL FODDER!

Here, we can discuss why GA sucks, ECNL is for losers, BY is for babies, SY is for morons, and GY is for cheaters! YOU SHOULD ALL BE FOCUSED ON 1000!!

[Anonymous]

My only request to US Soccer is to enforce for refs strong teaching and training regarding “off side”.

I have seen, across the whole country, so many refs that simply don’t understand that concept.

They call when the open player is at off position when receiving, and that’s incorrect.

“Off side” should be called if at the time the passing player releases the ball, the receiver is in off position.