US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s better from a friendship and keeping kids interested in playing perspective, but yes other than that it is just moving the borders. Someone will always be the oldest and someone will always be the youngest (and smallest/biggest, slowest/fastest) no matter where you put the borders.

I fully disagree. The current rule discriminates children born in the later months because they aren’t able to play down. You see coaches in the US are behind in terms of IQ compared to the rest of world. The majority of coaches in US overlook the small children and select the biggest and tallest, most of these are born January-March, some may be born in November but because they are big they get noticed. Those other younger and smaller are left behind (unless they are the Messy of the team but how many?). Because the age they are selected to move to DA or other elite league is 12-13, the age when children are going through many changes including psychological changes, the fact of being discriminated by coaches results on many of these kids quitting soccer. I have read many articles that bring up that the age when kids stop liking the sport is 12-13.

There will always be RAE, birth year simply allows us to have the same RAE as the rest of the world.

I am not the PP, but the relationship between birth month and the school year makes a big difference in the lower years, as linking the two together encourages kids to play soccer and makes it more likely that they will keep playing. Yes, there is going to be a RAE no matter what. However, January - March/April kids are advantaged. They are the oldest and largely they are going to be on teams with kids they go to school with (or in the same grade with), because very few Sept to December kids are going to be on the top team. The later born kids, July through November, tend to be on B teams and lower and are a mix of kids in two different grades. You are young, you may be smaller, it is clear that no matter what, the coaches don't favor you - why keep playing? It is more fun to play basketball with your friends in your grade (even if you are small) than it is to keep getting moved to different teams each year that have fewer kids that you know, so basketball seems more fun than soccer. Obviously there are going to be outliers, but it is clear to me that very few small kids overcome where they are placed at age 12 in the US soccer system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ and wasn’t raised in England or the US where size matters. Might have been a different story...

Christian Pulisic (who is no Messi, but same size issue)

Pulisic is not the product of the US soccer system. His soccer upbringing was unique, so he is not a good example.

He's American and did play here for a time. It's a great example, for players with his level talent. Messi is a level above that.

Read his story. It might provide a blueprint for development in the US, but it is not a success story for the US soccer establishment.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2713937-the-christian-pulisic-blueprint

[Anonymous]

Every sport in the world that involves physical movement has RAE. Find the right level for your kids to play at and get over it!

[Anonymous]

Exactly. Please tell us your magic utopian sport that doesn't have a relative age effect at the youth level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Please tell us your magic utopian sport that doesn't have a relative age effect at the youth level.

I don't know anyone who was upset over the age change because of RAE. It's because of trapped kids and also the relationship between club soccer and school ball, pure and simple, not because of what teams their kids can or cannot make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Please tell us your magic utopian sport that doesn't have a relative age effect at the youth level.

I don't know anyone who was upset over the age change because of RAE. It's because of trapped kids and also the relationship between club soccer and school ball, pure and simple, not because of what teams their kids can or cannot make.

There are plenty of people upset over the age change because of RAE--it's just not a convincing argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Please tell us your magic utopian sport that doesn't have a relative age effect at the youth level.

I don't know anyone who was upset over the age change because of RAE. It's because of trapped kids and also the relationship between club soccer and school ball, pure and simple, not because of what teams their kids can or cannot make.

There are plenty of people upset over the age change because of RAE--it's just not a convincing argument.

Maybe they are; maybe they aren't. But the real reason to do it is what I mentioned: it has yielded no real benefit (because there is always RAE no matter what you do) but it has caused trapped players and a negative dynamic for the 8th grade/9th grade group, as well as the 11th grade/12th grade group (where sometimes a single player or 2-3 must now join a new team their senior year, when they should be enjoying that final year with the team they spent the last several years with. While this always happens sometimes in some rare cases, now it has become a norm. And to no added value of moving to a calendar year. My kids were not impacted by the RAE because they are spring births, but I still say it is net a problem.

[Anonymous]

Why not a system that allows flexibility at younger ages (18 month overlapping windows) and implements the age change for middle school and up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid has a late Fall Bday and 3/4s of his team will graduate a year ahead of him. I think it should always have followed school calendar.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of crazy in this pretend rumor is astronomical.

+1. September-October parents FTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s better from a friendship and keeping kids interested in playing perspective, but yes other than that it is just moving the borders. Someone will always be the oldest and someone will always be the youngest (and smallest/biggest, slowest/fastest) no matter where you put the borders.

I fully disagree. The current rule discriminates children born in the later months because they aren’t able to play down. You see coaches in the US are behind in terms of IQ compared to the rest of world. The majority of coaches in US overlook the small children and select the biggest and tallest, most of these are born January-March, some may be born in November but because they are big they get noticed. Those other younger and smaller are left behind (unless they are the Messy of the team but how many?). Because the age they are selected to move to DA or other elite league is 12-13, the age when children are going through many changes including psychological changes, the fact of being discriminated by coaches results on many of these kids quitting soccer. I have read many articles that bring up that the age when kids stop liking the sport is 12-13.

There will always be RAE, birth year simply allows us to have the same RAE as the rest of the world.

I am not the PP, but the relationship between birth month and the school year makes a big difference in the lower years, as linking the two together encourages kids to play soccer and makes it more likely that they will keep playing. Yes, there is going to be a RAE no matter what. However, January - March/April kids are advantaged. They are the oldest and largely they are going to be on teams with kids they go to school with (or in the same grade with), because very few Sept to December kids are going to be on the top team. The later born kids, July through November, tend to be on B teams and lower and are a mix of kids in two different grades. You are young, you may be smaller, it is clear that no matter what, the coaches don't favor you - why keep playing? It is more fun to play basketball with your friends in your grade (even if you are small) than it is to keep getting moved to different teams each year that have fewer kids that you know, so basketball seems more fun than soccer. Obviously there are going to be outliers, but it is clear to me that very few small kids overcome where they are placed at age 12 in the US soccer system.

First, I agree that it is better to be grouped closer to grade level than birth year... but...as other have pointed out, there will always be someone on the younger end of the spectrum. Moving it to grade year puts the youngest as those born April-July, instead of September - December.
My son is on a B team. Almost every player is either a fall / winter birthday, or playing an age group up.

[Anonymous]

I"m going to be an outlier and say that I don't care either way. But my son is a "B" team player, and probably always would be, no matter what the age bracket. He's just a decent, but not great player.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't England follow school year, not birth year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't England follow school year, not birth year?

Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't England follow school year, not birth year?

Who cares?

Because the whole reason for doing the change was to "do what the rest of the world does" which might not necessarily be the case.