US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is still a rumor, but the old age groups started August 1, so July would be the youngest.

It’s not even a rumor. There is no buzz, rumors or talk of this. I talk to a few friends who are connect to US soccer. Nothing. They are having trouble filling out the the youth coaching staff because of the requirement to move to Chicago.

It’s a rumor started by op quite successfully,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

No, all these complaints are completely about shifting RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Right. I'll give you an example. My undersized late August 2005 birthday kid was one of the oldest under the old classification. If I could do it over, I probably would have held him back a year due to his lack of maturity, which would have put in in the same grade as most of the kids in in his age group under the old system

However, as a younger kid who was fairly skilled, under the old system, he opted to play up with his school friends (we have a September 1 cutoff). He was playing with some kids a year older, but it was having the option to be with his friends made it fun. He definitely was more confident playing up under those circumstances.

When the age groups changed, all of the kids born in September to December were removed from the age group groups they were previously in. Under the new classification, he was now in the same age group as kids born in January through August. But if he wanted to try to stay with the September to December born kids he was friends with, he would have had to play in an age group with kids born as early as January 2004, which is a huge age difference, especially for a smaller kid.

I prefer the school year designations, but at this point, I don't know whether I would want them changed. Changing age groups is too disruptive.

Also, one of the stated reasons of going to calendar year age groups was that it would make coaches more aware of the relative age effect. News flash - they aren't more aware or they simply don't care. DS plays on an upper level EDP team, and most of the starters on his team, the team below him, and the team above him were born in January through March/April. I would rather see coaches have more awareness of the RAE and the advantage associated with it, no matter where the cutoff is, so that younger players aren't shafted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Whats your source for the percentage of boys with August or September birthdays redshirting? I cannot imagine it’s anywhere close to a “majority.” I agree using a grade level cutoff is a disastrous idea for the reasons you mention, and the same sad scenario with double hold-backs happened in lacrosse for many years as well.

I have no concerns with the old soccer cutoff, which didn’t hold my June and July kids back in any discernible way, nor do I have one with the current cutoff. But the PP is correct that there was never any public outcry on behalf of the kids who were separated from their grade-mates under the old system and faced these exact same “trapped” scenarios. Much of the criticism of the 2016 change has come from those whose kids were “winners” under the old system and “losers” under the new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Whats your source for the percentage of boys with August or September birthdays redshirting? I cannot imagine it’s anywhere close to a “majority.” I agree using a grade level cutoff is a disastrous idea for the reasons you mention, and the same sad scenario with double hold-backs happened in lacrosse for many years as well.

I have no concerns with the old soccer cutoff, which didn’t hold my June and July kids back in any discernible way, nor do I have one with the current cutoff. But the PP is correct that there was never any public outcry on behalf of the kids who were separated from their grade-mates under the old system and faced these exact same “trapped” scenarios. Much of the criticism of the 2016 change has come from those whose kids were “winners” under the old system and “losers” under the new.

To be clear, my kid is a late-December birthday and I don't want them to change back to school year at this point because it would just be another upheaval. The reason there was no "public outcry" before was because there were far fewer "trapped" kids -- kids who are required to play with kids a grade ahead of them. The only such kids would have been kids who are born before August 1 who were redshirted, and thus the parents made an affirmative decision to put them in the "trapped" situation.

[Anonymous]

Grade year enhances opportunities to "play with friends" and kids who play with their friends and schoolmates are more likely to continue playing the sport than kids who are playing with random fellow players. While many friendships do arise in these random travel situations, in younger kids these relationships aren't as strong as the relationships they have with their classmates.

In a sport where 75% of the players quit by age 13, there is some concern about what will keep more players interested over the long term. DA, yea whatever, it's a job. But for the hundreds of thousands of 'travel' kids US soccer wants to find a better solution than the churn and burnout situation they now have. Maybe grade year would do that--maybe not. Maybe DA stays on the International standard and travel moves to a more school friendly arrangement.

But I second the idea that this 'rumor' is probably just made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grade year enhances opportunities to "play with friends" and kids who play with their friends and schoolmates are more likely to continue playing the sport than kids who are playing with random fellow players. While many friendships do arise in these random travel situations, in younger kids these relationships aren't as strong as the relationships they have with their classmates.

In a sport where 75% of the players quit by age 13, there is some concern about what will keep more players interested over the long term. DA, yea whatever, it's a job. But for the hundreds of thousands of 'travel' kids US soccer wants to find a better solution than the churn and burnout situation they now have. Maybe grade year would do that--maybe not. Maybe DA stays on the International standard and travel moves to a more school friendly arrangement.

But I second the idea that this 'rumor' is probably just made up.

Travel soccer does not guarantee playing with friends. If your soccer priorities are social there is rec.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ this isn’t talent, idiot. This is a kid not having a team for a season because they are “trapped”. Tell your kid he can’t play spring season—see what he thinks about that.

I really don’t understand the “trap” thing. A Fall birthday player can keep playing with his/her team be it playing up. The only issue is when kids leave their clubs at U18/19 due to college when your DC will be a Senior in HS. Otherwise, they can stay on the team assuming their performance is on par with the rest of the team.

My DD, late October BDAY, is still in elementary school while 98% of her team is in MS.

Please tell me what I’m missing.

What you're missing is that some '05 teams will sit out the spring season, or scale back, because most of the kids are in ninth grade and are playing high school or JV soccer, but this leaves the eighth graders in the lurch. And I think you recognize the issue of when your kid is a senior and most of her team has already gone to college.

This. There is no spring season/almost zero games for sons 2005 8th graders. It will continue to be like this unless they go back to align with school calendar.

Let's change everything for the 8th graders. smh

Let’s change everything for the 1 American kid that will make it to FIFA. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Right. I'll give you an example. My undersized late August 2005 birthday kid was one of the oldest under the old classification. If I could do it over, I probably would have held him back a year due to his lack of maturity, which would have put in in the same grade as most of the kids in in his age group under the old system

However, as a younger kid who was fairly skilled, under the old system, he opted to play up with his school friends (we have a September 1 cutoff). He was playing with some kids a year older, but it was having the option to be with his friends made it fun. He definitely was more confident playing up under those circumstances.

When the age groups changed, all of the kids born in September to December were removed from the age group groups they were previously in. Under the new classification, he was now in the same age group as kids born in January through August. But if he wanted to try to stay with the September to December born kids he was friends with, he would have had to play in an age group with kids born as early as January 2004, which is a huge age difference, especially for a smaller kid.

I prefer the school year designations, but at this point, I don't know whether I would want them changed. Changing age groups is too disruptive.

Also, one of the stated reasons of going to calendar year age groups was that it would make coaches more aware of the relative age effect. News flash - they aren't more aware or they simply don't care. DS plays on an upper level EDP team, and most of the starters on his team, the team below him, and the team above him were born in January through March/April. I would rather see coaches have more awareness of the RAE and the advantage associated with it, no matter where the cutoff is, so that younger players aren't shafted.

The problem with your example is he was playing up, so you weren't following the system anyways. It makes how he did not relevant to the conversation and then you are furthering it by saying how the new system impacts his ability to play up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Right. I'll give you an example. My undersized late August 2005 birthday kid was one of the oldest under the old classification. If I could do it over, I probably would have held him back a year due to his lack of maturity, which would have put in in the same grade as most of the kids in in his age group under the old system

However, as a younger kid who was fairly skilled, under the old system, he opted to play up with his school friends (we have a September 1 cutoff). He was playing with some kids a year older, but it was having the option to be with his friends made it fun. He definitely was more confident playing up under those circumstances.

When the age groups changed, all of the kids born in September to December were removed from the age group groups they were previously in. Under the new classification, he was now in the same age group as kids born in January through August. But if he wanted to try to stay with the September to December born kids he was friends with, he would have had to play in an age group with kids born as early as January 2004, which is a huge age difference, especially for a smaller kid.

I prefer the school year designations, but at this point, I don't know whether I would want them changed. Changing age groups is too disruptive.

Also, one of the stated reasons of going to calendar year age groups was that it would make coaches more aware of the relative age effect. News flash - they aren't more aware or they simply don't care. DS plays on an upper level EDP team, and most of the starters on his team, the team below him, and the team above him were born in January through March/April. I would rather see coaches have more awareness of the RAE and the advantage associated with it, no matter where the cutoff is, so that younger players aren't shafted.

The problem with your example is he was playing up, so you weren't following the system anyways. It makes how he did not relevant to the conversation and then you are furthering it by saying how the new system impacts his ability to play up.

Not at all. The point was that there was some flexibility for younger kids to play travel soccer with classmates. When he was little, it was more FUN to play with friends and that made him motivated and committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grade year enhances opportunities to "play with friends" and kids who play with their friends and schoolmates are more likely to continue playing the sport than kids who are playing with random fellow players. While many friendships do arise in these random travel situations, in younger kids these relationships aren't as strong as the relationships they have with their classmates.

In a sport where 75% of the players quit by age 13, there is some concern about what will keep more players interested over the long term. DA, yea whatever, it's a job. But for the hundreds of thousands of 'travel' kids US soccer wants to find a better solution than the churn and burnout situation they now have. Maybe grade year would do that--maybe not. Maybe DA stays on the International standard and travel moves to a more school friendly arrangement.

But I second the idea that this 'rumor' is probably just made up.

While I think this is all just talk, I think the concept of returning to the school year system with an August cut off (which some Virginia school districts do) was better. Then you can keep the DA on a calendar year.

The next part is mostly anecdotal so take it for what it's worth.
Pre-DA, when my DD did school year for travel and calendar year for ODP it was odd how varied sizes were in calendar years. I don't know why, but for some reason, calendar year teams look more different, especially during the puberty years.

I've read a while back about what influences puberty onset, and how exposure impacts it. So I wonder if it's related to peer group interactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never really get all the "grade year" arguments. We did not have a "grade year" cutoff in soccer before. August 1st was not grade year - it is two months off of the Virginia school cutoff date. So in Virginia soccer we went from 2 months off the school cutoff with Aug 1st to 3 months off the cutoff with birth year. But this 5 month move completely changed who received the relative age advantage which I think is the root of all these discussions not "grade year".

Completely agree.

You're being obtuse. Particularly with boys, August 1 was a fairly good proxy for grade level; the majority of boys born in August or September are sent to school late. It's not a perfect grade level cutoff, but it's probably as close as you could get without doing an actual grade level cutoff like in basketball, where 14-year-old seventh graders who were held back play against seventh graders who just turned 12.

Right. I'll give you an example. My undersized late August 2005 birthday kid was one of the oldest under the old classification. If I could do it over, I probably would have held him back a year due to his lack of maturity, which would have put in in the same grade as most of the kids in in his age group under the old system

However, as a younger kid who was fairly skilled, under the old system, he opted to play up with his school friends (we have a September 1 cutoff). He was playing with some kids a year older, but it was having the option to be with his friends made it fun. He definitely was more confident playing up under those circumstances.

When the age groups changed, all of the kids born in September to December were removed from the age group groups they were previously in. Under the new classification, he was now in the same age group as kids born in January through August. But if he wanted to try to stay with the September to December born kids he was friends with, he would have had to play in an age group with kids born as early as January 2004, which is a huge age difference, especially for a smaller kid.

I prefer the school year designations, but at this point, I don't know whether I would want them changed. Changing age groups is too disruptive.

Also, one of the stated reasons of going to calendar year age groups was that it would make coaches more aware of the relative age effect. News flash - they aren't more aware or they simply don't care. DS plays on an upper level EDP team, and most of the starters on his team, the team below him, and the team above him were born in January through March/April. I would rather see coaches have more awareness of the RAE and the advantage associated with it, no matter where the cutoff is, so that younger players aren't shafted.

The problem with your example is he was playing up, so you weren't following the system anyways. It makes how he did not relevant to the conversation and then you are furthering it by saying how the new system impacts his ability to play up.

Not at all. The point was that there was some flexibility for younger kids to play travel soccer with classmates. When he was little, it was more FUN to play with friends and that made him motivated and committed.

I get what you are trying to prove, and I too support playing with classmates. But using your son's play up example just doesn't help. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ this isn’t talent, idiot. This is a kid not having a team for a season because they are “trapped”. Tell your kid he can’t play spring season—see what he thinks about that.

I really don’t understand the “trap” thing. A Fall birthday player can keep playing with his/her team be it playing up. The only issue is when kids leave their clubs at U18/19 due to college when your DC will be a Senior in HS. Otherwise, they can stay on the team assuming their performance is on par with the rest of the team.

My DD, late October BDAY, is still in elementary school while 98% of her team is in MS.

Please tell me what I’m missing.

What you're missing is that some '05 teams will sit out the spring season, or scale back, because most of the kids are in ninth grade and are playing high school or JV soccer, but this leaves the eighth graders in the lurch. And I think you recognize the issue of when your kid is a senior and most of her team has already gone to college.

This. There is no spring season/almost zero games for sons 2005 8th graders. It will continue to be like this unless they go back to align with school calendar.

Let's change everything for the 8th graders. smh

Let’s change everything for the 1 American kid that will make it to FIFA. Lol

What does “make it to FIFA” mean?