Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

12:24 Don't assume that people didn't try to impact this decision before it was made. They did. They just weren't heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:24 Don't assume that people didn't try to impact this decision before it was made. They did. They just weren't heard.

Fair enough, but as I understand it, it's a done deal at this point, correct? So trying to bludgeon our small segment of the internet court of public opinion into agreeing that another alternative would have been better accomplishes what exactly?

[Anonymous]

I personally hope the local clubs and leagues will just go ahead and make the changes for 2016.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally hope the local clubs and leagues will just go ahead and make the changes for 2016.

That's the question now - how does this get rolled out locally. I assume it will be decided collectively at the league level (CCL, NCSL, ODSL etc). I also hope they just go directly to the new cutoff in 2016 rather than have some sort of grandfathered rollout over 2 years.

I think a transition year would be messy with some AUG-DEC kids trying to play up into the next age group to prepare and some AUG-DEC kids wanting to stay back for one last year. This would create a temporary 17 month age spread which is big at the younger ages and I think will result in some confusion on who gets to fill the available spots at a club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:24 Don't assume that people didn't try to impact this decision before it was made. They did. They just weren't heard.

Fair enough, but as I understand it, it's a done deal at this point, correct? So trying to bludgeon our small segment of the internet court of public opinion into agreeing that another alternative would have been better accomplishes what exactly?

At this point I think people are just trying to make an impact at the local level. Many different PP's have responded to you, not just one or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally hope the local clubs and leagues will just go ahead and make the changes for 2016.

January birthday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again people are not saying it's "horrible" to do to this to a child or a tragedy or en epic wrong upon their child, just that it is not an optimal way to keep kids engaged in the sport over the long term particularly when you look at rec kids and younger age groups. I have seen all sorts of posts how this isn't horrible or its not that bad or they'll adjust and I agree with all these things. Yes, I am sure many will adjust and if they don't they can quit, these rec kids weren't going to be our professional soccer players anyway.

Two words: Christen Press.

A few more words: EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN THE WORLD STARTED AS A RECREATIONAL PLAYER.

So let's ditch the elitist attitudes in here and remember who we're talking about.

Are you just trying to be provocative, or do you actually believe that your A-D above describes those of us who have been taking the time to thoughtfully respond to your various assertions and the many others who share our perspective, including the leaders of the U.S. Youth Soccer, U.S. Club Soccer and AYSO (a rec league!!)? Either way, it's a very arrogant and off-putting way to frame the issue. I'm guessing you are not actually interested in view points that differ from yours, but I'll take another stab at this.

Go back to the post you're arguing with. The quote: "If you don't understand why switching to birth year all the way down to youngest rec leagues is a big deal, you ..."

So I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. There are a lot of people in here who are simply dismissive of anyone's concerns. Those are the people I was addressing.

(C) Rolling my eyes at this one. From your posts, I am guessing that you have younger kids and not much experience with those kids playing high level soccer.

Oh, if only this weren't an anonymous board. Believe me, the points I'm making here are based upon interactions with scores of people at the highest levels of the game.

Finally, you say this: "I'm still waiting to see the argument that the U-Little rec leagues have to be set up the same way as the U-Teen elite leagues. Especially when it's so easy to make the transition when you're already switching to more selective teams and eventually into two-year age groups." I'm not sure why anyone would want to argue with you about this. Might have been a useful idea if it had come up and gotten traction before USSF approved the new mandates, but now it's a done deal and we are all just trying to figure out what the impact will be. You knew these changes were being discussed by US soccer, right? It has been covered in the youth soccer news for ages. Why didn't you work to try to change the proposal when you still had a chance instead of just haranguing those of us with a different view of it afterward?

It's not a done deal. Rec leagues are just starting to process what to do.

Besides -- USSF mandated a curriculum in 2011. How's THAT going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hardly think Little League is a great example of a league that does a good job retaining or attracting less talented players long term. The less talented kids go into the drafts and as every year goes by that they don't get drafted into the next level they become older and older than everyone else. Some absolutely hang on because they love baseball but I have seen lots of kids quit because they are too embarrassed to play among kids so many years younger. But again most people aren't that concerned with those kids because they aren't going to be on your town all star team anyway. But in my view they are kids who we should be trying to keep engaged but I am clearly in the minority on this subject. I get that this is sports and some kids will always be better than others and I don't believe that every kid should get a trophy just for showing up. But I do appreciate models where talented kids can get what they need but less talented kids can also have a place where they can still participate in organized sports with kids their own age, get some fresh air and exercise and I think house soccer programs as they are set up right now do a pretty good job of that. Especially because kids develop at different rates and you never know when some kid who might not have shined when they were younger suddenly starts to shine when they are older -- but you have to keep those kids engaged.

The Little League approach has a good bit of logic to it. If you're inexperienced, you don't go in at the same level as the kids who have been playing for years. It's difficult to coach U8 rec teams with a few people just getting in their last pre-travel seasons and others who are absolute beginners.

I pitched an idea to my club to do a couple of preseason training programs to bring new players up to speed -- or at least get them to know they're supposed to stand in their own half of the field at kickoff. Well-received but not implemented. Not yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this whole rule seems so stupid to me. The USMNT is not have the best soccer team in the world because most of our country's best natural athletes do not play soccer. It is not the most popular sport here. Our best athletes are divided up between baseball, basketball, football (although this is is becoming less popular among youth) and of course some do play soccer. Seems like our women are doing ok under the current system. So they are going to shake things up for an entire country worth of kids, but the best athletes are still not going to play soccer. And you've got all these rec children in a country with an obesity problem, kids spending too much time glued video games, and a staggering statistic about the number of kids dropping out of organized sports, and you are going to make it harder for them to enjoy soccer.

Exactly.

Here's what ESPN's Tom Farrey had to say about the state of youth sports in his book Game On: "It’s less and less accessible to the late bloomer, the genetically ordinary, the economically disadvantaged, the child of a one-parent household, the physically or mentally disabled, and the kid who needs exercise more than any other - the clinically obese.”

And if you're all worried about the eventual state of the national teams, note the term "late bloomer" in there. If you restrict soccer to those who are all riled up and ready to play up when they're five years old, you will leave out a lot of great players.

Great quote - it also affects your future fanbase, which league execs and team owners are very keenly aware of. MLB is acutely aware of this issue as it relates to baseball with the cratering of little league and youth baseball participation and how that will shape the size of the mlb fan population 20-30 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this whole rule seems so stupid to me. The USMNT is not have the best soccer team in the world because most of our country's best natural athletes do not play soccer. It is not the most popular sport here. Our best athletes are divided up between baseball, basketball, football (although this is is becoming less popular among youth) and of course some do play soccer. Seems like our women are doing ok under the current system. So they are going to shake things up for an entire country worth of kids, but the best athletes are still not going to play soccer. And you've got all these rec children in a country with an obesity problem, kids spending too much time glued video games, and a staggering statistic about the number of kids dropping out of organized sports, and you are going to make it harder for them to enjoy soccer.

Exactly.

Here's what ESPN's Tom Farrey had to say about the state of youth sports in his book Game On: "It’s less and less accessible to the late bloomer, the genetically ordinary, the economically disadvantaged, the child of a one-parent household, the physically or mentally disabled, and the kid who needs exercise more than any other - the clinically obese.”

And if you're all worried about the eventual state of the national teams, note the term "late bloomer" in there. If you restrict soccer to those who are all riled up and ready to play up when they're five years old, you will leave out a lot of great players.

Great quote - it also affects your future fanbase, which league execs and team owners are very keenly aware of. MLB is acutely aware of this issue as it relates to baseball with the cratering of little league and youth baseball participation and how that will shape the size of the mlb fan population 20-30 years from now.


God- I hate baseball. It's not like it offers the obese kid much activity anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once again people are not saying it's "horrible" to do to this to a child or a tragedy or en epic wrong upon their child, just that it is not an optimal way to keep kids engaged in the sport over the long term particularly when you look at rec kids and younger age groups. I have seen all sorts of posts how this isn't horrible or its not that bad or they'll adjust and I agree with all these things. Yes, I am sure many will adjust and if they don't they can quit, these rec kids weren't going to be our professional soccer players anyway.

Two words: Christen Press.

A few more words: EVERY SINGLE PLAYER IN THE WORLD STARTED AS A RECREATIONAL PLAYER.

So let's ditch the elitist attitudes in here and remember who we're talking about.

Are you just trying to be provocative, or do you actually believe that your A-D above describes those of us who have been taking the time to thoughtfully respond to your various assertions and the many others who share our perspective, including the leaders of the U.S. Youth Soccer, U.S. Club Soccer and AYSO (a rec league!!)? Either way, it's a very arrogant and off-putting way to frame the issue. I'm guessing you are not actually interested in view points that differ from yours, but I'll take another stab at this.

Go back to the post you're arguing with. The quote: "If you don't understand why switching to birth year all the way down to youngest rec leagues is a big deal, you ..."

So I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here. There are a lot of people in here who are simply dismissive of anyone's concerns. Those are the people I was addressing.

(C) Rolling my eyes at this one. From your posts, I am guessing that you have younger kids and not much experience with those kids playing high level soccer.

Oh, if only this weren't an anonymous board. Believe me, the points I'm making here are based upon interactions with scores of people at the highest levels of the game.

Finally, you say this: "I'm still waiting to see the argument that the U-Little rec leagues have to be set up the same way as the U-Teen elite leagues. Especially when it's so easy to make the transition when you're already switching to more selective teams and eventually into two-year age groups." I'm not sure why anyone would want to argue with you about this. Might have been a useful idea if it had come up and gotten traction before USSF approved the new mandates, but now it's a done deal and we are all just trying to figure out what the impact will be. You knew these changes were being discussed by US soccer, right? It has been covered in the youth soccer news for ages. Why didn't you work to try to change the proposal when you still had a chance instead of just haranguing those of us with a different view of it afterward?

It's not a done deal. Rec leagues are just starting to process what to do.

Besides -- USSF mandated a curriculum in 2011. How's THAT going?

I'm really unclear on where you are seeing an elitist attitude here, or why you think there are "a lot of people in here who are simply dismissive of anyone's concerns". This has been a thoughtful discussion with a lot of posters making points on both sides. The most dismissive post by far has been the obnoxious A-D statement (which I am assuming you made). It seems like you might be attributing to DCUM posters comments you object to on other platforms, like Twitter.

With respect to Christen Press and the line about everyone starting as rec players? You can repeat those things all day, but I don't see how they add to the argument. Those of us who think the age group reclassifications are not a huge deal are predicting that people will adjust fine in a year or two, and that the change won't deter kids from playing soccer (rec or otherwise). Given that, we think the Christen Presses of the world would have been just as happy picking daisies on a mixed kindergarten/first grade team as on a purely first grade team, and that their transition to being serious at soccer would happen at around the same time as under the old system.

On the mandate, from what I can figure out, all rec and travel programs and leagues sanctioned by the various US soccer organizational units will have to comply with the age group changes by fall of 2017. Is this correct? If so, then it is a done deal in the sense that there is no possibility of setting up U-Little rec leagues with age groups in a different way than U-Teen elite leagues, unless the mandate is overturned or the rec leagues operate outside the reach of US soccer (I'm not sure how this would work). Is that right? If so, then it would seem that the only questions remaining for the rec programs is whether it should be done a year early, and how it should be communicated to their membership. I'm not positive about any of this, but it seems to be the case from what the head of AYSO said in a recent SoccerAmerica article (http://www.socceramerica.com/article/65329/youth-leaders-react-to-change-to-soccers-registra.html)

“We have some time between now and the mandate,” says Hoyer. “We are reviewing it for how to implement it. We have nearly half a million kids. We have all the regions across the United States. We’re looking at it from, ‘Here’s the mandate. How do we make this work? What’s our timing on education, on updating our processes and procedures? Overall, there will be some impact, but I don’t think it will be that big.”

[Anonymous]

There have been some tournaments the past few weekends. Anything of interest to note? How are the parents acting these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been some tournaments the past few weekends. Anything of interest to note? How are the parents acting these days?

All is good.

[Anonymous]

This announcement today:

"Virginia Youth Soccer Assn. is a US Soccer and US Youth Soccer state association... The US Youth Soccer board voted to implement the calendar year registration 2016-2017 year. All state associations and their members are required to make the change. The remaining US Soccer mandates will be enacted in 2017-2018. At the US Youth Soccer AGM in late July, a straw poll vote was taken for implementing the birth year registration in 2016-17 and the result was 91% in favor..."

Can anyone confirm what is the practical effect of this? For now, does this just cover VA ODP and Super Y? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/us_youth_soccer_board_of_directors_approves_implementation_of_us_soccer_mandates/

This is from the USYS announcement:

The US Youth Soccer programs and competitions that will introduce the birth-year registration in the 2016-17 soccer year include, but are not limited to, the following:

US Youth Soccer National Championships Series — including national, regional and state competitions
US Youth Soccer Presidents Cup — including national, regional and state competitions
US Youth Soccer National League
US Youth Soccer Regional Leagues
US Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program

I would think any league that qualifies a team for NCS/State Cup would have to follow birth year registration for next year, so really any VYSA travel league.

Super Y is registered through US Club. I haven't seen a similar announcement from US Club.