Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

This is the OP. We have relationships with a number of ECNL clubs in the area, I know my daughter would not have a problem moving to one of their teams. It's just that we didn't expect to be faced with these types of decisions in her last year of club soccer. The girls she has played with have been together since they were u-littles and they really are a family. The thought of seeing them play together next year and my daughter being excluded for no fault of her own is just so sad. Her coach is telling us not to worry, he is the listed U18 coach for the club next year and thinks the rest of the team will play up and stay with him. I guess it's just a waiting game at this point. Thanks for the advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP. We have relationships with a number of ECNL clubs in the area, I know my daughter would not have a problem moving to one of their teams. It's just that we didn't expect to be faced with these types of decisions in her last year of club soccer. The girls she has played with have been together since they were u-littles and they really are a family. The thought of seeing them play together next year and my daughter being excluded for no fault of her own is just so sad. Her coach is telling us not to worry, he is the listed U18 coach for the club next year and thinks the rest of the team will play up and stay with him. I guess it's just a waiting game at this point. Thanks for the advice.

I wonder if the leagues you play in might have a U19 bracket as well? That way it wouldn't even really be playing up for the younger girls. Worth checking if you haven't already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the age group change, this is a huge issue for our family. My daughter is U17 and plays on a top premier club team. She is currently fielding college offers and is deciding whether she wants to play D1 or D3 soccer. She struggles academically due to a learning disability so would probably be better suited on a D3 team where it won't be so much of a 'job'. She is the only player on her team that is a 1998 and a junior. The rest of the team is made up of 1999 players and a small number of 1998 seniors, who will be playing college soccer next year. She was looking forward to next year being her last club year with this team that she has played with for years. IF for some reason, the 1999 players decide not to play up for next year, she will be the only player without a team. So, she will have to attend tryouts and pick a team of girls she doesn't know, for one season, or not play club at all. For a kid who has worked for over 10 years to play at the top of her age group, this is disheartening. Take a look at some of the ECNL rosters for the U17 teams in the area. Many teams have girls in the same boat. Why ussoccer has totally abandoned these top elite players is beyond me. Why there was not a grandfathered clause for the U17 teams is beyond me. All I know is this is adding anther layer of stress at a time when she really doesn't need it.

This sucks and you're not the only family facing this issue. Unfortunately US Soccer doesn't care about your problem or the ones facing 99.99% of soccer families. All they want is for kids with Jan-Mar birthdays (and national team potential) to enjoy the benefit of the "relative age effect" instead of the Aug-Oct kids (and national team potential) who currently get that benefit because every other country in the world gives the RAE benefit to Jan-Mar kids. Why they think this shift will result in the US Men's National team becoming competitive can only be attributed to willful stupidity (the women's team continues to win despite under the current birthdate cutoff).

Immediate PP, are you the person pushing that silly petition? Seems like a massive waste of time since there is about 0.0% chance of the mandate being overturned any time soon.

Don't be so sure. A lot of forces have aligned to bring some reason to the birth-year change.

Won't totally stop it, but will keep it from being so draconian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This sucks and you're not the only family facing this issue. Unfortunately US Soccer doesn't care about your problem or the ones facing 99.99% of soccer families. All they want is for kids with Jan-Mar birthdays (and national team potential) to enjoy the benefit of the "relative age effect" instead of the Aug-Oct kids (and national team potential) who currently get that benefit because every other country in the world gives the RAE benefit to Jan-Mar kids. Why they think this shift will result in the US Men's National team becoming competitive can only be attributed to willful stupidity (the women's team continues to win despite under the current birthdate cutoff).

Immediate PP, are you the person pushing that silly petition? Seems like a massive waste of time since there is about 0.0% chance of the mandate being overturned any time soon.

Don't be so sure. A lot of forces have aligned to bring some reason to the birth-year change.

Won't totally stop it, but will keep it from being so draconian.

What forces are you referring to? Are these forces working on something practical that will help people like PP's daughter stay together with their long term teams during the key recruiting years of high school? I would be interested in knowing about efforts to alleviate the problems the age group classifications will have for current HS sophomores and juniors hoping to play in college, and what evidence you have that US soccer league sanctioning bodies will make changes. I would add my support if I thought there was a decent chance that collective grass-roots actions would help that group.

Or do you just mean that you are joining forces with others to complain about the changes on internet forums and you think that that alone will bring about change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This sucks and you're not the only family facing this issue. Unfortunately US Soccer doesn't care about your problem or the ones facing 99.99% of soccer families. All they want is for kids with Jan-Mar birthdays (and national team potential) to enjoy the benefit of the "relative age effect" instead of the Aug-Oct kids (and national team potential) who currently get that benefit because every other country in the world gives the RAE benefit to Jan-Mar kids. Why they think this shift will result in the US Men's National team becoming competitive can only be attributed to willful stupidity (the women's team continues to win despite under the current birthdate cutoff).

Immediate PP, are you the person pushing that silly petition? Seems like a massive waste of time since there is about 0.0% chance of the mandate being overturned any time soon.

Don't be so sure. A lot of forces have aligned to bring some reason to the birth-year change.

Won't totally stop it, but will keep it from being so draconian.

What forces are you referring to? Are these forces working on something practical that will help people like PP's daughter stay together with their long term teams during the key recruiting years of high school? I would be interested in knowing about efforts to alleviate the problems the age group classifications will have for current HS sophomores and juniors hoping to play in college, and what evidence you have that US soccer league sanctioning bodies will make changes. I would add my support if I thought there was a decent chance that collective grass-roots actions would help that group.

Or do you just mean that you are joining forces with others to complain about the changes on internet forums and you think that that alone will bring about change?

Several columnists have spoken out about the changes, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that U.S. Soccer is starting to pay attention. U.S. Youth Soccer is *always* paying attention.

I don't know if it'll be enough to keep long-term teams together at the older ages. The argument is easier at the lower ages -- there's simply no reason to force rec leagues to be "U5, U6, U7" and so on. In smaller towns nationally, rec leagues already have to get creative -- they often don't have enough kids for a single-year age group, anyway.

But I do think U.S. Soccer has heard enough to consider giving these "mandates" some loopholes.

[Anonymous]

Thank you PPs -- Would love any links or cites to articles opposing or discussing the calendar year change....

[Anonymous]

Why isn't Herndon in one of these "elite" leagues like CCL or VPL? They seem to have D1 team in almost every age group in NCSL and a couple of WAGS age groups as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP. We have relationships with a number of ECNL clubs in the area, I know my daughter would not have a problem moving to one of their teams. It's just that we didn't expect to be faced with these types of decisions in her last year of club soccer. The girls she has played with have been together since they were u-littles and they really are a family. The thought of seeing them play together next year and my daughter being excluded for no fault of her own is just so sad. Her coach is telling us not to worry, he is the listed U18 coach for the club next year and thinks the rest of the team will play up and stay with him. I guess it's just a waiting game at this point. Thanks for the advice.

It's not a big deal for your DD's teammates to play up to U18 because on average, there is little or no difference in quality/level of play between U17 and U18 girls teams.

I know of a high-level girls team that is playing up TWO years in CCL, and I'm told they are getting better results at the older age group then they did last year at their natural age group group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This sucks and you're not the only family facing this issue. Unfortunately US Soccer doesn't care about your problem or the ones facing 99.99% of soccer families. All they want is for kids with Jan-Mar birthdays (and national team potential) to enjoy the benefit of the "relative age effect" instead of the Aug-Oct kids (and national team potential) who currently get that benefit because every other country in the world gives the RAE benefit to Jan-Mar kids. Why they think this shift will result in the US Men's National team becoming competitive can only be attributed to willful stupidity (the women's team continues to win despite under the current birthdate cutoff).

Immediate PP, are you the person pushing that silly petition? Seems like a massive waste of time since there is about 0.0% chance of the mandate being overturned any time soon.

Don't be so sure. A lot of forces have aligned to bring some reason to the birth-year change.

Won't totally stop it, but will keep it from being so draconian.

What forces are you referring to? Are these forces working on something practical that will help people like PP's daughter stay together with their long term teams during the key recruiting years of high school? I would be interested in knowing about efforts to alleviate the problems the age group classifications will have for current HS sophomores and juniors hoping to play in college, and what evidence you have that US soccer league sanctioning bodies will make changes. I would add my support if I thought there was a decent chance that collective grass-roots actions would help that group.

Or do you just mean that you are joining forces with others to complain about the changes on internet forums and you think that that alone will bring about change?

Several columnists have spoken out about the changes, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that U.S. Soccer is starting to pay attention. U.S. Youth Soccer is *always* paying attention.

I don't know if it'll be enough to keep long-term teams together at the older ages. The argument is easier at the lower ages -- there's simply no reason to force rec leagues to be "U5, U6, U7" and so on. In smaller towns nationally, rec leagues already have to get creative -- they often don't have enough kids for a single-year age group, anyway.

But I do think U.S. Soccer has heard enough to consider giving these "mandates" some loopholes.

In my opinion, adding the flexibility to keep existing teams together during the college recruiting years is the only change that is important. A current U16 or U17 who is forced to move to a new team may not show nearly so well to a potential college coach since the team chemistry element takes a while to build. The younger teams have more time to adjust and figure out whether they want to stay together with the Jan-Aug. kids playing up or remake the rosters.

The birth year changes don't cause any problems for rec leagues that don't have enough kids for a single-year age group, because they will still be able to lump age groups together. For example, they can have 2009-2010 birth year kids play in the 2009 groups. Others have said they think the changes will be so stressful for kindergartners in the Sept.-December age groups who will have to play with first graders under the new rules that many of them will quit soccer or never start in the first place. This theory doesn't square with my perception of kids at that age, most of whom are very resilient and like to make new friends. I think this will generally be an issue only in cases where the the parent is driving the decision based on thinks like the cohort of other parents they want to hang out with or in cases where the child is very anxious and a very anxious parent is shaping the kid's experience of sports. I don't think an anxious child with a reassuring parent is likely to have this problem. There may be some parents who strongly oppose the change because they don't want their kids to be the youngest and at an initial disadvantage for that reason, but hopefully not too many people think that way when starting rec.

I take issue with all the statements claiming that none of the new mandates will help the "99.99 percent" of soccer families with kids who are not at the national team level. People seem to forget that there is no way to know at the youngest ages who will be a national team prospect or other high level player. This is why I think it's good that we start with soccer "best practices" early, and try to more closely follow the models of countries like Germany and the Netherlands that are able to produce large numbers of happy rec players and talented pros. And I don't think citing the success of our women's national team is in any way persuasive. We got a jump start on developing female athletes because of Title IX, and other countries who have begun to focus on women's athletic programs are catching up quickly. There is massive room for improvement for our women's team as well as for the men's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This sucks and you're not the only family facing this issue. Unfortunately US Soccer doesn't care about your problem or the ones facing 99.99% of soccer families. All they want is for kids with Jan-Mar birthdays (and national team potential) to enjoy the benefit of the "relative age effect" instead of the Aug-Oct kids (and national team potential) who currently get that benefit because every other country in the world gives the RAE benefit to Jan-Mar kids. Why they think this shift will result in the US Men's National team becoming competitive can only be attributed to willful stupidity (the women's team continues to win despite under the current birthdate cutoff).

Immediate PP, are you the person pushing that silly petition? Seems like a massive waste of time since there is about 0.0% chance of the mandate being overturned any time soon.

Don't be so sure. A lot of forces have aligned to bring some reason to the birth-year change.

Won't totally stop it, but will keep it from being so draconian.

What forces are you referring to? Are these forces working on something practical that will help people like PP's daughter stay together with their long term teams during the key recruiting years of high school? I would be interested in knowing about efforts to alleviate the problems the age group classifications will have for current HS sophomores and juniors hoping to play in college, and what evidence you have that US soccer league sanctioning bodies will make changes. I would add my support if I thought there was a decent chance that collective grass-roots actions would help that group.

Or do you just mean that you are joining forces with others to complain about the changes on internet forums and you think that that alone will bring about change?

Several columnists have spoken out about the changes, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that U.S. Soccer is starting to pay attention. U.S. Youth Soccer is *always* paying attention.

I don't know if it'll be enough to keep long-term teams together at the older ages. The argument is easier at the lower ages -- there's simply no reason to force rec leagues to be "U5, U6, U7" and so on. In smaller towns nationally, rec leagues already have to get creative -- they often don't have enough kids for a single-year age group, anyway.

But I do think U.S. Soccer has heard enough to consider giving these "mandates" some loopholes.

In my opinion, adding the flexibility to keep existing teams together during the college recruiting years is the only change that is important. A current U16 or U17 who is forced to move to a new team may not show nearly so well to a potential college coach since the team chemistry element takes a while to build. The younger teams have more time to adjust and figure out whether they want to stay together with the Jan-Aug. kids playing up or remake the rosters.

The birth year changes don't cause any problems for rec leagues that don't have enough kids for a single-year age group, because they will still be able to lump age groups together. For example, they can have 2009-2010 birth year kids play in the 2009 groups. Others have said they think the changes will be so stressful for kindergartners in the Sept.-December age groups who will have to play with first graders under the new rules that many of them will quit soccer or never start in the first place. This theory doesn't square with my perception of kids at that age, most of whom are very resilient and like to make new friends. I think this will generally be an issue only in cases where the the parent is driving the decision based on thinks like the cohort of other parents they want to hang out with or in cases where the child is very anxious and a very anxious parent is shaping the kid's experience of sports. I don't think an anxious child with a reassuring parent is likely to have this problem. There may be some parents who strongly oppose the change because they don't want their kids to be the youngest and at an initial disadvantage for that reason, but hopefully not too many people think that way when starting rec.

I take issue with all the statements claiming that none of the new mandates will help the "99.99 percent" of soccer families with kids who are not at the national team level. People seem to forget that there is no way to know at the youngest ages who will be a national team prospect or other high level player. This is why I think it's good that we start with soccer "best practices" early, and try to more closely follow the models of countries like Germany and the Netherlands that are able to produce large numbers of happy rec players and talented pros. And I don't think citing the success of our women's national team is in any way persuasive. We got a jump start on developing female athletes because of Title IX, and other countries who have begun to focus on women's athletic programs are catching up quickly. There is massive room for improvement for our women's team as well as for the men's.

Our Club stated that requests to play-up just to keep teams together will generally be denied. Maybe with the oldest kids that will be a little different. With the younger groups--I think they just want to get it ironed out now and figure at this stage it won't cause that much damage.

[Anonymous]

Since the arguments seems to be going over your head, I'll try to keep it simple.

First, no one is arguing against the implementation of small-sided games. So your point about following the models of more successful countries is not relevant to this conversation; we all agree.

Second, the point of contention is shifting the birthdate cutoff from August 1 to January 1. The ONLY benefit of this shift is to change the beneficiaries of the relative age effect from the Aug-Oct kids to the Jan-Mar kids. But as you admit, no one knows at the early ages who will turn out to be the best players at the older ages so what evidence does US Soccer have that those best players to be will be in the Jan-Mar group instead of the Aug-Oct group. It doesn't even make it easier for national team coaches to identify players as many, but not all of them will be playing up an age group. And in exchange for a miniscule, if any, benefit, we cause a massive and continuing disruptions to youth soccer. For example, it's harder for college coaches to scout players in a particular graduation class. It's harder for Aug-Dec seniors to find a HS team to play for. Aug-Dec 8th graders will have their club season interrupted or cancelled by the Jan-July players' HS season. And yes, the social benefits for young players gained from meeting and playing with their classmates will be lessened. These negative effects affect many more soccer players than the very few players who will benefit from the birthdate shift, and will cause more harm than good to the cause of soccer in the US.

Now about the Women's National Team, do you have any evidence that the team would have done better if those players came through a system with Jan.1 birthdate cutoff instead of the August 1 cutoff? Didn't think so. Their success in spite of the August 1 cutoff shows how useless this change is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Since the arguments seems to be going over your head, I'll try to keep it simple.

First, no one is arguing against the implementation of small-sided games. So your point about following the models of more successful countries is not relevant to this conversation; we all agree.

Second, the point of contention is shifting the birthdate cutoff from August 1 to January 1. The ONLY benefit of this shift is to change the beneficiaries of the relative age effect from the Aug-Oct kids to the Jan-Mar kids. But as you admit, no one knows at the early ages who will turn out to be the best players at the older ages so what evidence does US Soccer have that those best players to be will be in the Jan-Mar group instead of the Aug-Oct group. It doesn't even make it easier for national team coaches to identify players as many, but not all of them will be playing up an age group. And in exchange for a miniscule, if any, benefit, we cause a massive and continuing disruptions to youth soccer. For example, it's harder for college coaches to scout players in a particular graduation class. It's harder for Aug-Dec seniors to find a HS team to play for. Aug-Dec 8th graders will have their club season interrupted or cancelled by the Jan-July players' HS season. And yes, the social benefits for young players gained from meeting and playing with their classmates will be lessened. These negative effects affect many more soccer players than the very few players who will benefit from the birthdate shift, and will cause more harm than good to the cause of soccer in the US.

Now about the Women's National Team, do you have any evidence that the team would have done better if those players came through a system with Jan.1 birthdate cutoff instead of the August 1 cutoff? Didn't think so. Their success in spite of the August 1 cutoff shows how useless this change is.

Sigh. Your arguments have not gone over my head. I have read comments like yours from critics of the age group changes on twitter, soccerwire.com, talking-soccer.com and other sites, and I'm sure you are perfectly aware that many of the comments in response disagree with your take on the issue. I do not believe there will be massive and continuing disruptions from the age group reclassifications, and I can see a number of positives that could result from it. But I understand you are not going to be swayed from your agenda here, and you'll get more attention as an alarmist, which is likely your goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since the arguments seems to be going over your head, I'll try to keep it simple.

First, no one is arguing against the implementation of small-sided games. So your point about following the models of more successful countries is not relevant to this conversation; we all agree.

Second, the point of contention is shifting the birthdate cutoff from August 1 to January 1. The ONLY benefit of this shift is to change the beneficiaries of the relative age effect from the Aug-Oct kids to the Jan-Mar kids. But as you admit, no one knows at the early ages who will turn out to be the best players at the older ages so what evidence does US Soccer have that those best players to be will be in the Jan-Mar group instead of the Aug-Oct group. It doesn't even make it easier for national team coaches to identify players as many, but not all of them will be playing up an age group. And in exchange for a miniscule, if any, benefit, we cause a massive and continuing disruptions to youth soccer. For example, it's harder for college coaches to scout players in a particular graduation class. It's harder for Aug-Dec seniors to find a HS team to play for. Aug-Dec 8th graders will have their club season interrupted or cancelled by the Jan-July players' HS season. And yes, the social benefits for young players gained from meeting and playing with their classmates will be lessened. These negative effects affect many more soccer players than the very few players who will benefit from the birthdate shift, and will cause more harm than good to the cause of soccer in the US.

Now about the Women's National Team, do you have any evidence that the team would have done better if those players came through a system with Jan.1 birthdate cutoff instead of the August 1 cutoff? Didn't think so. Their success in spite of the August 1 cutoff shows how useless this change is.

Sigh. Your arguments have not gone over my head. I have read comments like yours from critics of the age group changes on twitter, soccerwire.com, talking-soccer.com and other sites, and I'm sure you are perfectly aware that many of the comments in response disagree with your take on the issue. I do not believe there will be massive and continuing disruptions from the age group reclassifications, and I can see a number of positives that could result from it. But I understand you are not going to be swayed from your agenda here, and you'll get more attention as an alarmist, which is likely your goal.

Oh please enlightene one, tell us the benefits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Since the arguments seems to be going over your head, I'll try to keep it simple.

First, no one is arguing against the implementation of small-sided games. So your point about following the models of more successful countries is not relevant to this conversation; we all agree.

Second, the point of contention is shifting the birthdate cutoff from August 1 to January 1. The ONLY benefit of this shift is to change the beneficiaries of the relative age effect from the Aug-Oct kids to the Jan-Mar kids. But as you admit, no one knows at the early ages who will turn out to be the best players at the older ages so what evidence does US Soccer have that those best players to be will be in the Jan-Mar group instead of the Aug-Oct group. It doesn't even make it easier for national team coaches to identify players as many, but not all of them will be playing up an age group. And in exchange for a miniscule, if any, benefit, we cause a massive and continuing disruptions to youth soccer. For example, it's harder for college coaches to scout players in a particular graduation class. It's harder for Aug-Dec seniors to find a HS team to play for. Aug-Dec 8th graders will have their club season interrupted or cancelled by the Jan-July players' HS season. And yes, the social benefits for young players gained from meeting and playing with their classmates will be lessened. These negative effects affect many more soccer players than the very few players who will benefit from the birthdate shift, and will cause more harm than good to the cause of soccer in the US.

Now about the Women's National Team, do you have any evidence that the team would have done better if those players came through a system with Jan.1 birthdate cutoff instead of the August 1 cutoff? Didn't think so. Their success in spite of the August 1 cutoff shows how useless this change is.

Sigh. Your arguments have not gone over my head. I have read comments like yours from critics of the age group changes on twitter, soccerwire.com, talking-soccer.com and other sites, and I'm sure you are perfectly aware that many of the comments in response disagree with your take on the issue. I do not believe there will be massive and continuing disruptions from the age group reclassifications, and I can see a number of positives that could result from it. But I understand you are not going to be swayed from your agenda here, and you'll get more attention as an alarmist, which is likely your goal.

Oh please enlightene one, tell us the benefits

Naw. I'm not in the mood to undertake a fruitless effort at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Aw c'mon, certainly someone as knowledgeable as yourself could effortlessly tell us foolish alarmists all the great benefits from the change.

Or maybe you could just be honest and admit you're full of crap and have just been regurgitating the company line and are incapable of original thought.