Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused, if a kid is born on February 29 do they have to request to play up several years under these new rules?

It means my high school kid is going to dominate the U5 league next year.

Hahahaha! Nice, someone else who sees all these future National Team players parents nonstop banter.

I know you are joking, but to answer seriously, if I thought my kids were truly USNT-bound, this change wouldn't worry me. It's the fact that they're not that makes me worried. The USNT-level kids will be fine. It's the serious-but-not-USNT level kids who won't be.

Same here. Some of us have older kids who will be immediately affected by this. For the prior PP, you have a problem with people trying to figure out what it will mean?

Also, for others who are following this and have younger kids who are serious about soccer there actually are lots of boys and girls from the DC metro area who end in the youth national team player pool. There are 5 kids from VA, MD and DC at a U15 national team camp in CA right now and a bunch more at the id2 camp in NJ. Countless others from around here are playing in DA, ECNL, or top national or regional leagues. This is a great area to be from if your kid wants to play in college.

Look, I have no problem with anyone trying to figure it out. I was just trying to bring some levity to this nonstop thread.

I am not sure what is that complicated about it though. Seems straightforward. If your kid falls within in certain birth range that has now shifted, he/she may play up with an older age group previously. Does that mean if there are multiple teams in an age group for your club and your child now plays on a "lower level team" that it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean that if they no longer make a travel team it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean if they are not with their friends it is the end of the world? No. Do I want a kid to have such a negative experience that they lose the passion and love for a sport? No. But let's face it folks, adversity is a part of life and kids will be exposed to it as they get older. The sporting world has always been a great place for kids to learn life lessons and this may be one of them. It probably sucks but again, it is not the end of the world.

Peace, over and out. Back to my cave!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I'm confused, if a kid is born on February 29 do they have to request to play up several years under these new rules?

It means my high school kid is going to dominate the U5 league next year.

Hahahaha! Nice, someone else who sees all these future National Team players parents nonstop banter.

I know you are joking, but to answer seriously, if I thought my kids were truly USNT-bound, this change wouldn't worry me. It's the fact that they're not that makes me worried. The USNT-level kids will be fine. It's the serious-but-not-USNT level kids who won't be.

Same here. Some of us have older kids who will be immediately affected by this. For the prior PP, you have a problem with people trying to figure out what it will mean?

Also, for others who are following this and have younger kids who are serious about soccer there actually are lots of boys and girls from the DC metro area who end in the youth national team player pool. There are 5 kids from VA, MD and DC at a U15 national team camp in CA right now and a bunch more at the id2 camp in NJ. Countless others from around here are playing in DA, ECNL, or top national or regional leagues. This is a great area to be from if your kid wants to play in college.

Look, I have no problem with anyone trying to figure it out. I was just trying to bring some levity to this nonstop thread.

I am not sure what is that complicated about it though. Seems straightforward. If your kid falls within in certain birth range that has now shifted, he/she may play up with an older age group previously. Does that mean if there are multiple teams in an age group for your club and your child now plays on a "lower level team" that it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean that if they no longer make a travel team it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean if they are not with their friends it is the end of the world? No. Do I want a kid to have such a negative experience that they lose the passion and love for a sport? No. But let's face it folks, adversity is a part of life and kids will be exposed to it as they get older. The sporting world has always been a great place for kids to learn life lessons and this may be one of them. It probably sucks but again, it is not the end of the world.

Peace, over and out. Back to my cave!

You are missing the major issue. The major issue here is that many fall birthday kids will not have a team senior year of high school, during the time when they should be preparing for college soccer if they want to play in college. This is less of an impact for kids who play DA (though I suspect it will have some impact) but it's a huge possible impact for kids who are good enough to play in D3/D4 college but not DA/D1.

I don't care that kids don't play with their classmates. I don't care that they don't play with their friends. I don't care that they might not be on the team they want to be on when they're U11. I don't care that it's mixed kinders and first grade or whatever. I DO care that for kids who love soccer, they get to continue playing and don't lose a year of development right before college, which is the major issue here. Calling that "facing adversity" and shrugging your shoulders is ridiculous. That's a possibly career-ending situation for kids who are serious about soccer.

If they had rolled this out for a plan to make sure that fall-birthday, non-DA-but-serious HS seniors still had a clear path, I wouldn't care about this. They didn't and as far as I can tell, it's not something they care much about because the fall birthday DA kids will get to keep playing.

[Anonymous]

I am not even sure fall birthday DA will have teams senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not even sure fall birthday DA will have teams senior year.

DA teams don't have this problem. They have been on calendar year age groups for a while, maybe from the beginning, and have two year bands. Here are the age groups for the current season:

U-13/14: Players born on or after 1/1/2001
U-15/16: Players born on or after 1/1/1999
U-17/18: Players born on or after 1/1/1997

I know less about ECNL, but have read that they have a "trapped player" rule to deal with the fall birthday kids who are seniors or in their last year of middle school. I don't know exactly what this means, but it sounds promising!

For non-DA or ECNL teams, I am wondering if current U-17 teams will be ok for at least next year. If there is no special provision made for the fall seniors, it won't be that big of a deal for the Jan-July kids who are their teammates to play up with them in the U18 bracket. The age max age range would only be 16 months (Sept. to December of the following year), and presumably team chemistry would outweigh any benefit from keeping the '99 kids together and cutting the '98 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look, I have no problem with anyone trying to figure it out. I was just trying to bring some levity to this nonstop thread.

I am not sure what is that complicated about it though. Seems straightforward. If your kid falls within in certain birth range that has now shifted, he/she may play up with an older age group previously. Does that mean if there are multiple teams in an age group for your club and your child now plays on a "lower level team" that it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean that if they no longer make a travel team it is the end of the world? No. Does it mean if they are not with their friends it is the end of the world? No. Do I want a kid to have such a negative experience that they lose the passion and love for a sport? No. But let's face it folks, adversity is a part of life and kids will be exposed to it as they get older. The sporting world has always been a great place for kids to learn life lessons and this may be one of them. It probably sucks but again, it is not the end of the world.

Peace, over and out. Back to my cave!

Ok then, I'm sorry for being snappish. I agree with everything you've said above, it's just that this situation is provoking some anxiety for those of us with U-17s. We are on a short fuse trying to help our over-burdened kids deal with soccer, high school, and SAT/ACT prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the Vienna soccer insiders who post to this thread? Can you opine on what VYS plans to do to help their players through the age group transition?

It's a question for the leagues.

If you mean the House leagues -- we're not sure. Bear in mind that there's been a lot of pushback on this issue, and I think we're going to get word soon that things are more flexible than they seem.

[Anonymous]

Aren't ECNL and DA teams both in two-year age groups at that age, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the Vienna soccer insiders who post to this thread? Can you opine on what VYS plans to do to help their players through the age group transition?

It's a question for the leagues.

If you mean the House leagues -- we're not sure. Bear in mind that there's been a lot of pushback on this issue, and I think we're going to get word soon that things are more flexible than they seem.

Thanks. What has the pushback been focused on? The kindergarten classmate issue or potentially breaking up existing older teams? I would have assumed all the house league teams would just stay together, with younger kids playing up as needed. Is that not the case?

[Anonymous]

I wish the pushback on this was focusing on the fall birthday U17/18 kids. Focusing on the kinder classmate issue seems pretty silly to me, but the U17/18 non-DA issue seems serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish the pushback on this was focusing on the fall birthday U17/18 kids. Focusing on the kinder classmate issue seems pretty silly to me, but the U17/18 non-DA issue seems serious.

I think folks are over-reacting on the U17/U18 issue. No club of any significance is going to leave 8 or 9 of their current U17 players (born Sep -Dec) without a team for their last year of club ball. Why would a club ever allow that to happen? If a club abandoned those kids it would lose tens of thousands of dollars in players' club fees. It would be unable to field U18 teams in CCL or WAGS, or NCSL. It would have no teams to field at the U18 -evel in the big tournaments. Why in the world would a club allow that to happen?

The answer is, I believe, that clubs won't allow that to happen. The younger (Jan-July) U17 girls will just continue to play with their slightly older teammates and move up to U18 -- in essence grandfathering the older ages from the calendar year change while implementing the change at the younger ages where there are typically two, three or four teams at each age group so nobody is left without enough players in their calendar year.

For those concerned about their Jan-July kids being disadvantaged by having to "play up" it really should be a non-issue to continue to play with their former teammates. Those Jan-July kids would be playing against kids that are at most a few months older than those they were previously playing against.

And remember, may of these kids, if they are any good, have been "playing up" against kids 2-3 years older then they are on their HS teams, or when playing up on older teams for their own clubs in tournaments or other games when needed. And of course everyone will have to "play up" against kids as much as 3 years older when they show up at their college pre-season camp.

[Anonymous]

I think it's hilarious. I've checked rosters on leagues be I have a late June bday kid. Absolutely the fall bday kids have had an advantage. Things are definitely going to change. True talent shows regardless of a 3 mo range. The problem is all those fall bday kids on A team thinking they are so much better than the spring kids on the b team. Seems like the best thing is for everyone to prove their worth. Not who their friends are , who they are usually with but who is actually playing the best. Tryouts could be interesting. Though I see many ways that some leagues will just for the most part ignore the changes and just redistribute based on current teams. I think it's a great opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the pushback on this was focusing on the fall birthday U17/18 kids. Focusing on the kinder classmate issue seems pretty silly to me, but the U17/18 non-DA issue seems serious.

I think folks are over-reacting on the U17/U18 issue. No club of any significance is going to leave 8 or 9 of their current U17 players (born Sep -Dec) without a team for their last year of club ball. Why would a club ever allow that to happen? If a club abandoned those kids it would lose tens of thousands of dollars in players' club fees. It would be unable to field U18 teams in CCL or WAGS, or NCSL. It would have no teams to field at the U18 -evel in the big tournaments. Why in the world would a club allow that to happen?

The answer is, I believe, that clubs won't allow that to happen. The younger (Jan-July) U17 girls will just continue to play with their slightly older teammates and move up to U18 -- in essence grandfathering the older ages from the calendar year change while implementing the change at the younger ages where there are typically two, three or four teams at each age group so nobody is left without enough players in their calendar year.

For those concerned about their Jan-July kids being disadvantaged by having to "play up" it really should be a non-issue to continue to play with their former teammates. Those Jan-July kids would be playing against kids that are at most a few months older than those they were previously playing against.

And remember, may of these kids, if they are any good, have been "playing up" against kids 2-3 years older then they are on their HS teams, or when playing up on older teams for their own clubs in tournaments or other games when needed. And of course everyone will have to "play up" against kids as much as 3 years older when they show up at their college pre-season camp.

What you say here sounds right to me. I was worried about the U17s at first, but as I'd mentioned above, the loss of team chemistry from breaking up a team their final year would put teams at a much greater disadvantage than having to play against other teams that may have a few more fall birthday kids. And the club fee incentive argument makes sense too.

I think I'm back to thinking that the changes really won't be a big deal once clubs and leagues explain next year's plans so people can understand what will and will not change. I'm still curious to hear if others have specific concerns about negative scenarios they expect to happen though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's hilarious. I've checked rosters on leagues be I have a late June bday kid. Absolutely the fall bday kids have had an advantage. Things are definitely going to change. True talent shows regardless of a 3 mo range. The problem is all those fall bday kids on A team thinking they are so much better than the spring kids on the b team. Seems like the best thing is for everyone to prove their worth. Not who their friends are , who they are usually with but who is actually playing the best. Tryouts could be interesting. Though I see many ways that some leagues will just for the most part ignore the changes and just redistribute based on current teams. I think it's a great opportunity.

Unfortunately all I've heard is that they are going to redistribute teams. No real tryouts specifically geared to spot talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's hilarious. I've checked rosters on leagues be I have a late June bday kid. Absolutely the fall bday kids have had an advantage. Things are definitely going to change. True talent shows regardless of a 3 mo range. The problem is all those fall bday kids on A team thinking they are so much better than the spring kids on the b team. Seems like the best thing is for everyone to prove their worth. Not who their friends are , who they are usually with but who is actually playing the best. Tryouts could be interesting. Though I see many ways that some leagues will just for the most part ignore the changes and just redistribute based on current teams. I think it's a great opportunity.

That's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is RAE will favor Jan-Apr instead of Aug-Dec. There aren't going to be true tryouts any more than there are now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's hilarious. I've checked rosters on leagues be I have a late June bday kid. Absolutely the fall bday kids have had an advantage. Things are definitely going to change. True talent shows regardless of a 3 mo range. The problem is all those fall bday kids on A team thinking they are so much better than the spring kids on the b team. Seems like the best thing is for everyone to prove their worth. Not who their friends are , who they are usually with but who is actually playing the best. Tryouts could be interesting. Though I see many ways that some leagues will just for the most part ignore the changes and just redistribute based on current teams. I think it's a great opportunity.

That's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is RAE will favor Jan-Apr instead of Aug-Dec. There aren't going to be true tryouts any more than there are now.

But the RAE will be more in line with international play!

(Seriously -- check out the U.S. U17 boys roster. No one born in short-sleeve weather need apply.)