Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

Sorry, meant "will be implemented Fall 2016?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

Sorry, meant "will be implemented Fall 2016?"

I agree that the way I read the Arlington email is that they haven't decided but likely fall 2016. Definitely didn't say 2017

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

Sorry, meant "will be implemented Fall 2016?"

I agree that the way I read the Arlington email is that they haven't decided but likely fall 2016. Definitely didn't say 2017

Arlington and the other CCL teams are talking and will come to a joint agreement as to how to proceed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

Sorry, meant "will be implemented Fall 2016?"

I agree that the way I read the Arlington email is that they haven't decided but likely fall 2016. Definitely didn't say 2017

Arlington and the other CCL teams are talking and will come to a joint agreement as to how to proceed.

Sorry-others are correct--changes for 2016 with it being mandatory across US in 2017.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington just sent out an email that soccer will be birth year (as mandatory) starting Fall of 2017.

This is really going to shake things up since the teams are about 1/2 and 1/2 between the years now.

And as I read the email, Arlington has not ruled out the possibility that the changes will be implemented Fall 2017? (Also, we are new to NCSL....when do the Fall schedules come out? Are they always this late? Thanks!)

NCSL schedules came out a couple of years ago.

I'm hoping House leagues ignore this "birth year" stuff. In travel, OK, though it'd make more sense to wait until kids hit U14, when Development Academies and other leagues combine into two-year groups anyway.

So here's a question: When will travel start now? In this area, it's typically the first U9 season. The first U9 season would now be a winter/spring season. So would clubs hold their first tryouts in November and start travel in March/April? Or would the second U8 season (in the fall) be the intro to travel? Or the second U9 season (also in the fall)?

And would we need to commit to clubs for a calendar year rather than a school year? The latter makes more sense -- families are more likely to move away from the area in the summer, not in the middle of the school year -- as long as clubs can get around the "confusion" of having a team play U9 in its first season and U10 in its second.

But that would require coaches to think about kids and parents' interests ahead of their own, so that'll never happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And really be ridiculous for the vast majority of kids playing soccer in the U.S. since younger kids in particular want to do sports with their friends/classmates. So now 1st graders born in Sept. through December will have to play on 2nd graders teams. That's not intimidating at all.

I get why they want to do this for scouts and recruiting at the elite level, but it's not the way to draw more athletic kids to soccer from other sports (that play by class year) if your end goal is to have better national teams.

A lot of the initial negative reaction to the age group change seems to echo these comments from the PP, but I'm not persuaded that the classmate issue will be a big deal for most. In the current rec structure, it seems like a lot of kids, maybe the majority, end up on teams with a good number of kids from other schools or towns. It takes them a week or two to get to know those kids, and then they've made a new set of friends to go along with those they know from school. My kids have always had August-born kids on their teams, and those kids have the option of playing up with their grade-mates (offers benefits in terms of developing your game and skills) or staying with their age group if they prefer to be among the bigger and stronger players. Now the category will grow from August only to Sept.-December, so it will be less intimidating to play up since you won't be alone.

In terms of building a better national team, I don't think USSF or people who have studied the issue are particularly worried about attracting athletes from other sports to soccer. The focus is on establishing a system where kids can learn the techniques, skills, tactics necessary to play at a high level and ultimately compete internationally, and then identifying the kids who can thrive in that system.

I think this is very short sighted thinking. A child's social network often revolves around sports whether their friends are on the same team as them or not. I think the change will turn a lot of fall children away from soccer although I could see a lot of Jan-May children encouraged by the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And really be ridiculous for the vast majority of kids playing soccer in the U.S. since younger kids in particular want to do sports with their friends/classmates. So now 1st graders born in Sept. through December will have to play on 2nd graders teams. That's not intimidating at all.

I get why they want to do this for scouts and recruiting at the elite level, but it's not the way to draw more athletic kids to soccer from other sports (that play by class year) if your end goal is to have better national teams.

A lot of the initial negative reaction to the age group change seems to echo these comments from the PP, but I'm not persuaded that the classmate issue will be a big deal for most. In the current rec structure, it seems like a lot of kids, maybe the majority, end up on teams with a good number of kids from other schools or towns. It takes them a week or two to get to know those kids, and then they've made a new set of friends to go along with those they know from school. My kids have always had August-born kids on their teams, and those kids have the option of playing up with their grade-mates (offers benefits in terms of developing your game and skills) or staying with their age group if they prefer to be among the bigger and stronger players. Now the category will grow from August only to Sept.-December, so it will be less intimidating to play up since you won't be alone.

In terms of building a better national team, I don't think USSF or people who have studied the issue are particularly worried about attracting athletes from other sports to soccer. The focus is on establishing a system where kids can learn the techniques, skills, tactics necessary to play at a high level and ultimately compete internationally, and then identifying the kids who can thrive in that system.

I think this is very short sighted thinking. A child's social network often revolves around sports whether their friends are on the same team as them or not. I think the change will turn a lot of fall children away from soccer although I could see a lot of Jan-May children encouraged by the change.

I guess I don't understand why the fall soccer kids would avoid soccer because of this. My two soccer players have summer birthdays, so they were always the youngest on their teams in the July 31 cutoff world. When they were really young, this meant that they were often the smallest on their teams, but not typically the worst. For the last couple of years my younger child has been playing on a team where many of the players are 16 months older. He's smaller than most, but is one of the better players. Though the biggest, oldest kids have certain advantages on average, especially in cases where coaches are unaware of the relative age effect, that doesn't mean that on any given team they'll dominate the youngest.

I think parents will just need to make sure to talk to their kids about the many benefits that come from playing with older, stronger kids. It's a great way to develop your game.

[Anonymous]

But won't it mean that Fall birthday kids will play with kids a year ahead of them in school? I think that is what is off-putting. 3/4 of the class will be on one team and the Fall birthdays will be on another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And really be ridiculous for the vast majority of kids playing soccer in the U.S. since younger kids in particular want to do sports with their friends/classmates. So now 1st graders born in Sept. through December will have to play on 2nd graders teams. That's not intimidating at all.

I get why they want to do this for scouts and recruiting at the elite level, but it's not the way to draw more athletic kids to soccer from other sports (that play by class year) if your end goal is to have better national teams.

A lot of the initial negative reaction to the age group change seems to echo these comments from the PP, but I'm not persuaded that the classmate issue will be a big deal for most. In the current rec structure, it seems like a lot of kids, maybe the majority, end up on teams with a good number of kids from other schools or towns. It takes them a week or two to get to know those kids, and then they've made a new set of friends to go along with those they know from school. My kids have always had August-born kids on their teams, and those kids have the option of playing up with their grade-mates (offers benefits in terms of developing your game and skills) or staying with their age group if they prefer to be among the bigger and stronger players. Now the category will grow from August only to Sept.-December, so it will be less intimidating to play up since you won't be alone.

In terms of building a better national team, I don't think USSF or people who have studied the issue are particularly worried about attracting athletes from other sports to soccer. The focus is on establishing a system where kids can learn the techniques, skills, tactics necessary to play at a high level and ultimately compete internationally, and then identifying the kids who can thrive in that system.

I think this is very short sighted thinking. A child's social network often revolves around sports whether their friends are on the same team as them or not. I think the change will turn a lot of fall children away from soccer although I could see a lot of Jan-May children encouraged by the change.

I guess I don't understand why the fall soccer kids would avoid soccer because of this. My two soccer players have summer birthdays, so they were always the youngest on their teams in the July 31 cutoff world. When they were really young, this meant that they were often the smallest on their teams, but not typically the worst. For the last couple of years my younger child has been playing on a team where many of the players are 16 months older. He's smaller than most, but is one of the better players. Though the biggest, oldest kids have certain advantages on average, especially in cases where coaches are unaware of the relative age effect, that doesn't mean that on any given team they'll dominate the youngest.

I think parents will just need to make sure to talk to their kids about the many benefits that come from playing with older, stronger kids. It's a great way to develop your game.

+1

My kid is a summer birthday and (gasp) redshirted, for valid medical reasons. He's always played with the kids in the grade above him and he is small even compared to kids in his grade. It's never been an issue. He's learned how to actually play better because he's had to learn how use his size to his advantage. He knows the kids on the team because they're in the same school together, may not be the same class but kids know other kids from different grades. It's expanded his network of good friends in the school too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So here's a question: When will travel start now? In this area, it's typically the first U9 season. The first U9 season would now be a winter/spring season. So would clubs hold their first tryouts in November and start travel in March/April? Or would the second U8 season (in the fall) be the intro to travel? Or the second U9 season (also in the fall)?

This is the matrix published by USYS
http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/1/15/USYS-NEW-SOCCER-AGE-CHART-2016-BIRTH-YEAR-MATRIX%20v1.pdf

The "seasonal year" will still run August thru July, is my understanding, with teams aging up as they do now on August 1 (so Aug 2016-July 2017 is the next seasonal year, then Aug 2017-July 2018, and so on)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But won't it mean that Fall birthday kids will play with kids a year ahead of them in school? I think that is what is off-putting. 3/4 of the class will be on one team and the Fall birthdays will be on another.

Yes this is what is off-putting. Not that these kids would be the smallest, but that they'd have to play with a different grade. The summer birthdays yes used to be the smallest, but at least they still got to play with their grade unless they were redshirted which was a parent's choice. The fall birthday children do not get a choice to move ahead in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And really be ridiculous for the vast majority of kids playing soccer in the U.S. since younger kids in particular want to do sports with their friends/classmates. So now 1st graders born in Sept. through December will have to play on 2nd graders teams. That's not intimidating at all.

I get why they want to do this for scouts and recruiting at the elite level, but it's not the way to draw more athletic kids to soccer from other sports (that play by class year) if your end goal is to have better national teams.

A lot of the initial negative reaction to the age group change seems to echo these comments from the PP, but I'm not persuaded that the classmate issue will be a big deal for most. In the current rec structure, it seems like a lot of kids, maybe the majority, end up on teams with a good number of kids from other schools or towns. It takes them a week or two to get to know those kids, and then they've made a new set of friends to go along with those they know from school. My kids have always had August-born kids on their teams, and those kids have the option of playing up with their grade-mates (offers benefits in terms of developing your game and skills) or staying with their age group if they prefer to be among the bigger and stronger players. Now the category will grow from August only to Sept.-December, so it will be less intimidating to play up since you won't be alone.

In terms of building a better national team, I don't think USSF or people who have studied the issue are particularly worried about attracting athletes from other sports to soccer. The focus is on establishing a system where kids can learn the techniques, skills, tactics necessary to play at a high level and ultimately compete internationally, and then identifying the kids who can thrive in that system.

I think this is very short sighted thinking. A child's social network often revolves around sports whether their friends are on the same team as them or not. I think the change will turn a lot of fall children away from soccer although I could see a lot of Jan-May children encouraged by the change.

I guess I don't understand why the fall soccer kids would avoid soccer because of this. My two soccer players have summer birthdays, so they were always the youngest on their teams in the July 31 cutoff world. When they were really young, this meant that they were often the smallest on their teams, but not typically the worst. For the last couple of years my younger child has been playing on a team where many of the players are 16 months older. He's smaller than most, but is one of the better players. Though the biggest, oldest kids have certain advantages on average, especially in cases where coaches are unaware of the relative age effect, that doesn't mean that on any given team they'll dominate the youngest.

I think parents will just need to make sure to talk to their kids about the many benefits that come from playing with older, stronger kids. It's a great way to develop your game.

+1

My kid is a summer birthday and (gasp) redshirted, for valid medical reasons. He's always played with the kids in the grade above him and he is small even compared to kids in his grade. It's never been an issue. He's learned how to actually play better because he's had to learn how use his size to his advantage. He knows the kids on the team because they're in the same school together, may not be the same class but kids know other kids from different grades. It's expanded his network of good friends in the school too.

We are in FCPS with well over 100 children per grade and close to 30 in each classroom. My kids don't need to expand their network especially during the younger years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But won't it mean that Fall birthday kids will play with kids a year ahead of them in school? I think that is what is off-putting. 3/4 of the class will be on one team and the Fall birthdays will be on another.

Yes this is what is off-putting. Not that these kids would be the smallest, but that they'd have to play with a different grade. The summer birthdays yes used to be the smallest, but at least they still got to play with their grade unless they were redshirted which was a parent's choice. The fall birthday children do not get a choice to move ahead in school.

Are all the kids on your child's travel team from one school and one grade? Right now my daughter's team includes kids spanning three grades due to birth dates, play-ups, etc. and they're from schools all over Fx county. With a few exceptions, none of these kids knew each other at all when they started on the team, and this year we lost two players and added four new players, all coming from different clubs/teams/schools, etc. Travel teams these days are not school or grade specific are they? We're in a larger club, so maybe this is unique to small clubs where kids come from a specific school/neighborhood? I just don't understand the angst of having your child play with kids in different grades.