US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard they are switching to the Mayan so that a group of McLean home schooled friends can play together.

Mayan youth sports involved human sacrifice I believe so could be a perfect fit for our uber competitive youth sports environment.

They win a lot at u11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they decide to move back, what would the cutoff be? August? September?

No July...that’s the rumor.

The cut off date should align with the beginning of the soccer season and July preseason practices.

I heard it is May.

I heard it is April

I heard February

[Anonymous]

This won’t happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they decide to move back, what would the cutoff be? August? September?

No July...that’s the rumor.

The cut off date should align with the beginning of the soccer season and July preseason practices.

I heard it is May.

I heard it is April

I heard February

I heard they are changing it January 2nd.

[Anonymous]

I is effective 1/1/2020....Tryouts start next week.

[Anonymous]

But they are using 24 month spans, not 12.

[Anonymous]

You people are all hilarious.

[Anonymous]

I heard they are switching to the Mayan so that a group of McLean home schooled friends can play together.


Mayan youth sports involved human sacrifice I believe so could be a perfect fit for our uber competitive youth sports environment.

This is the best response I've seen on DCUM in a long time.

[Anonymous]

What ever happened to bio-banding, where they did tests on how far developed a kid was vs. their parents vs. other kids, etc. Did US Soccer give up on that? I saw the English FA was looking at it too.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What ever happened to bio-banding, where they did tests on how far developed a kid was vs. their parents vs. other kids, etc. Did US Soccer give up on that? I saw the English FA was looking at it too.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative

Great question. Saw some lip service about it, but nothing much more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ever happened to bio-banding, where they did tests on how far developed a kid was vs. their parents vs. other kids, etc. Did US Soccer give up on that? I saw the English FA was looking at it too.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative

Great question. Saw some lip service about it, but nothing much more than that.

It really does not fit with the win at each age group model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ever happened to bio-banding, where they did tests on how far developed a kid was vs. their parents vs. other kids, etc. Did US Soccer give up on that? I saw the English FA was looking at it too.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative

Great question. Saw some lip service about it, but nothing much more than that.

It really does not fit with the win at each age group model.

Actually, I think that have experimented with it at the DA level.

I have also noticed (at least on the boys' side) that some teams have one or two players who are allowed to play down a year. I assume it is for size reasons.

As the parent of a soccer player in the who is barely on the growth chart (1st percentile), I find it ironic that at the highest level, we are willing to recognize that smaller and late developing kids are at a huge disadvantage in years below U16/U17 and take some measures to deal with that by allowing them to train at an appropriate level. However, outside of DA, clubs just keep cutting or demoting the small kids until they quit.

[Anonymous]

As the parent of a soccer player in the who is barely on the growth chart (1st percentile), I find it ironic that at the highest level, we are willing to recognize that smaller and late developing kids are at a huge disadvantage in years below U16/U17 and take some measures to deal with that by allowing them to train at an appropriate level. However, outside of DA, clubs just keep cutting or demoting the small kids until they quit.

Are they necessarily? If they want to be defenders, yes. But my son is a U11 of average height, and two of the best kids on his travel team are really tiny. They're forward players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As the parent of a soccer player in the who is barely on the growth chart (1st percentile), I find it ironic that at the highest level, we are willing to recognize that smaller and late developing kids are at a huge disadvantage in years below U16/U17 and take some measures to deal with that by allowing them to train at an appropriate level. However, outside of DA, clubs just keep cutting or demoting the small kids until they quit.

Are they necessarily? If they want to be defenders, yes. But my son is a U11 of average height, and two of the best kids on his travel team are really tiny. They're forward players.

It keeps getting harder for smaller kids during the puberty years. My son was a star at U11 too.

And also, remember that bio banding isn't just about size. It is about where you are in terms of development based on your genetic potential. A smaller 13 year old with a 5'4 inch dad might be close to fully grown, but a skinny 5'6 inch 13 year old with tall parents might be years from puberty and a growth spurt.

I have also heard that some European country (maybe Belgium?) allows smaller, less developed kids to play down.

[Anonymous]

Premier League sides have been experimenting with this as they don't want to miss out on talented kids simply because they haven't grown as much as their peers, yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/19/biobanding-scientists-skinny-kids-sporting-superstars

From our own experiences, our top player at U11 had a hard time at U12 when they went to a larger field and some of the kids had already hit puberty. The extra space and distance advantaged some kids more than others. Once he hit his growth spurt he was back in his main role once again, but for a year or so it was pretty tough.