Bio-banding rule to plays kids down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

It's Academy training philosophy vs pay to play or club training.

With Academy training the end goal is for players to play professionally and to get there in the shortest amount of time.

With pay to play the goal is to age bound players/teams so parents pay for club services as long as possible.

This is why in MLSN playing up is common.

This is confusing

If in MLS Next playing up 1 or 2 years is "normal" and common, how are we also having ongoing discussions about several area MLS Next teams doing bio-banding (kids playing down)

Because in academy system, the kids capable of playing up should play up. The kids with promise who are not big enough to play with their age groups should play down until they physically mature. An academy isn't supposed to provide fair competition, it's supposed to produce professional players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

Why not just be assumed a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
There's no normal

There is a big difference between a U16 playing U18 when the U16 is past puberty versus a U13 pre-puberty playing U15 already going through puberty.

You don't get it.

MLSN Academy players are recruited from all the different local teams.

Even if they're smaller the players are going to be good and used to playing up.

Are you referring to Philly Union, DCU and Red Bulls etc as MLSN Academy players?
Or are you lumping in the Alexandrias and Achilles and West Virginias?

Also, wouldn't playing up in EDP and ECNL be different than playing up in MLS Next (if MLS Next is the best of the best and biggest)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

Why not just be assumed a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
There's no normal

There is a big difference between a U16 playing U18 when the U16 is past puberty versus a U13 pre-puberty playing U15 already going through puberty.

You don't get it.

MLSN Academy players are recruited from all the different local teams.

Even if they're smaller the players are going to be good and used to playing up.

Are you referring to Philly Union, DCU and Red Bulls etc as MLSN Academy players?
Or are you lumping in the Alexandrias and Achilles and West Virginias?

Also, wouldn't playing up in EDP and ECNL be different than playing up in MLS Next (if MLS Next is the best of the best and biggest)

I'm speaking more conceptually and high level. Once you understand the general principles around biobanding and academy vs pay to play soccer things make much more sense.

Notice also that I'm not saying one style is better than another. Whichever makes your kid happy is where you want them to play.

The problem on forums like DCUM is that 80-90% of the commenters have girls and because of this only understand how girls youth soccer functions. They then try to apply their knowledge to boys and it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

This is not about college. Its about increasing the number of kids who make it through pro academies and become pros. If you look at birthdates of players on the top team or in the pros it is usually 70% are Jan-March, 20% April - June 10% July-December. If you break the year in quarters there should be equal number of kids on the top team/pros from each group. So the pro academies are leaving a lot of money on the table(in terms of pro contracts) by not developing the kids with later birthdates.

BB is trying to address this issue but it is not the total answer and is difficult to implement. You still have the older kids making the higher team, getting more coach attention at the younger ages, etc. way before the pro academies and in travel(US). A better way(cheaper and less crying from the parents) would be to play by year/quarters till after puberty. So ‘12/(Jan-March, ‘12/April-June, etc. This would also remove some of the pressure to win at the younger ages because the real teams would not be formed till the kids are a lot older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does MLSN determine if a kid should be biobanded? How can they tell if a kid is physically immature or just small?

Ugh... Girls parents are so frustrating.

Playing down is just another opportunity to play. Youre not labeled as a "bio bander" it's just a way for clubs to have more flexibility fielding teams and for players to get minutes.

Looking at bio banding from the opposing teams perspective it's a way to force "playing up"

You have to stop thinking about the results of a single game as the end of the world. Yes, everyone involved in MLSN wants to win. But what's more important than winning is Developing as a player. Development as a player means that you're able to handle different situations and come out on top. Playing up or playing down doesn't matter because the end goal is to play on a professional team. On a professional team age means nothing the only thing that matters is results.

What an incredibly rude answer to a simple question: How is bio banding determined? I'm not sure why the hostility. Just trying to understand how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

This is not about college. Its about increasing the number of kids who make it through pro academies and become pros. If you look at birthdates of players on the top team or in the pros it is usually 70% are Jan-March, 20% April - June 10% July-December. If you break the year in quarters there should be equal number of kids on the top team/pros from each group. So the pro academies are leaving a lot of money on the table(in terms of pro contracts) by not developing the kids with later birthdates.

BB is trying to address this issue but it is not the total answer and is difficult to implement. You still have the older kids making the higher team, getting more coach attention at the younger ages, etc. way before the pro academies and in travel(US). A better way(cheaper and less crying from the parents) would be to play by year/quarters till after puberty. So ‘12/(Jan-March, ‘12/April-June, etc. This would also remove some of the pressure to win at the younger ages because the real teams would not be formed till the kids are a lot older.

The trouble is, puberty can last into college for some boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does MLSN determine if a kid should be biobanded? How can they tell if a kid is physically immature or just small?

Ugh... Girls parents are so frustrating.

Playing down is just another opportunity to play. Youre not labeled as a "bio bander" it's just a way for clubs to have more flexibility fielding teams and for players to get minutes.

Looking at bio banding from the opposing teams perspective it's a way to force "playing up"

You have to stop thinking about the results of a single game as the end of the world. Yes, everyone involved in MLSN wants to win. But what's more important than winning is Developing as a player. Development as a player means that you're able to handle different situations and come out on top. Playing up or playing down doesn't matter because the end goal is to play on a professional team. On a professional team age means nothing the only thing that matters is results.

What an incredibly rude answer to a simple question: How is bio banding determined? I'm not sure why the hostility. Just trying to understand how it works.

It's not you, asking questions is fine.

The hard part is some girls parents can be incredibly block headed. Many girls parents like pay to play age banded teams and that's OK. If girls had a true professional Acadamy program that funneled players into professional teams everyone would have what they want and be happy. The problem is girls don't have an Academy to pro program. So what happens is that players that would prefer to play professionally are forced to be involved with pay to play age bound teams. This plays out in certain clubs hoarding talent by not playing them up even if the team kills everyone else their age. Provides great marketing for the club but unfortunately stagnates player development. But parents want wins and they're paying so you can see how things play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

This is not about college. Its about increasing the number of kids who make it through pro academies and become pros. If you look at birthdates of players on the top team or in the pros it is usually 70% are Jan-March, 20% April - June 10% July-December. If you break the year in quarters there should be equal number of kids on the top team/pros from each group. So the pro academies are leaving a lot of money on the table(in terms of pro contracts) by not developing the kids with later birthdates.

BB is trying to address this issue but it is not the total answer and is difficult to implement. You still have the older kids making the higher team, getting more coach attention at the younger ages, etc. way before the pro academies and in travel(US). A better way(cheaper and less crying from the parents) would be to play by year/quarters till after puberty. So ‘12/(Jan-March, ‘12/April-June, etc. This would also remove some of the pressure to win at the younger ages because the real teams would not be formed till the kids are a lot older.

Increase pro players? Why? We have too many now. You can only have some many travel soccer coaches. Kids should be in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

This is not about college. Its about increasing the number of kids who make it through pro academies and become pros. If you look at birthdates of players on the top team or in the pros it is usually 70% are Jan-March, 20% April - June 10% July-December. If you break the year in quarters there should be equal number of kids on the top team/pros from each group. So the pro academies are leaving a lot of money on the table(in terms of pro contracts) by not developing the kids with later birthdates.

BB is trying to address this issue but it is not the total answer and is difficult to implement. You still have the older kids making the higher team, getting more coach attention at the younger ages, etc. way before the pro academies and in travel(US). A better way(cheaper and less crying from the parents) would be to play by year/quarters till after puberty. So ‘12/(Jan-March, ‘12/April-June, etc. This would also remove some of the pressure to win at the younger ages because the real teams would not be formed till the kids are a lot older.

Increase pro players? Why? We have too many now. You can only have some many travel soccer coaches. Kids should be in school.

Most of us I assume are too sober to make sense of this response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

This is not about college. Its about increasing the number of kids who make it through pro academies and become pros. If you look at birthdates of players on the top team or in the pros it is usually 70% are Jan-March, 20% April - June 10% July-December. If you break the year in quarters there should be equal number of kids on the top team/pros from each group. So the pro academies are leaving a lot of money on the table(in terms of pro contracts) by not developing the kids with later birthdates.

BB is trying to address this issue but it is not the total answer and is difficult to implement. You still have the older kids making the higher team, getting more coach attention at the younger ages, etc. way before the pro academies and in travel(US). A better way(cheaper and less crying from the parents) would be to play by year/quarters till after puberty. So ‘12/(Jan-March, ‘12/April-June, etc. This would also remove some of the pressure to win at the younger ages because the real teams would not be formed till the kids are a lot older.

The trouble is, puberty can last into college for some boys.

There is no incentive to bio- band for college or travel(the feeder system for college). You will always an enough players and it does not matter if they are the best players you can develop. They just need enough players to fill the college ranks. College soccer is a non revenue sport and a very low priority for the colleges.

[Anonymous]

I'd say it matters to college coaches, who need to form the best teams that they can in order to win games and keep their jobs. Unless you're the very best soccer schools in the country you're not thinking of developing professionals, but unfortunately on the men's side especially bigger/ faster/ stronger is usually what they need to achieve the goal- winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd say it matters to college coaches, who need to form the best teams that they can in order to win games and keep their jobs. Unless you're the very best soccer schools in the country you're not thinking of developing professionals, but unfortunately on the men's side especially bigger/ faster/ stronger is usually what they need to achieve the goal- winning.

Clemson has won the national title two of the last three years. Considering most every guy lies by a couple inches about height, well more than half of their roster is under six feet. #facts
https://clemsontigers.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say it matters to college coaches, who need to form the best teams that they can in order to win games and keep their jobs. Unless you're the very best soccer schools in the country you're not thinking of developing professionals, but unfortunately on the men's side especially bigger/ faster/ stronger is usually what they need to achieve the goal- winning.

Clemson has won the national title two of the last three years. Considering most every guy lies by a couple inches about height, well more than half of their roster is under six feet. #facts
https://clemsontigers.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/

Also facts, they have a minimum of 11 International Players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd say it matters to college coaches, who need to form the best teams that they can in order to win games and keep their jobs. Unless you're the very best soccer schools in the country you're not thinking of developing professionals, but unfortunately on the men's side especially bigger/ faster/ stronger is usually what they need to achieve the goal- winning.

Clemson has won the national title two of the last three years. Considering most every guy lies by a couple inches about height, well more than half of their roster is under six feet. #facts
https://clemsontigers.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster/

It has been repeatedly addressed in this threat that bio-banding isn't about height—it's about biological age (physical and mental maturity) relative to the player pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd say it matters to college coaches, who need to form the best teams that they can in order to win games and keep their jobs. Unless you're the very best soccer schools in the country you're not thinking of developing professionals, but unfortunately on the men's side especially bigger/ faster/ stronger is usually what they need to achieve the goal- winning.

College soccer is not about having a winning program. Win or lose college coaches(both women and men soccer) keep their jobs. There is little To no pressure to win or change.