US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm, thats a really small sample for “the rest of the world”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Again, it's not about changing the options anyone's kid does or doesn't make. It's about the 8th/9th grade problem and the 11th/12th grade problem.

[Anonymous]

Never going to happen.

[Anonymous]

I think everyone agrees that the age strange certainly lowered the number of participants in the sport in our country in established areas and programs. Obviously growing parts of our country are still developing new players as New Soccer communities to. The problem is going to be 10 to 15 years from now with all these kids who stop playing the game who were going to be fans of the sport as parents and their children would be fans of the game may not be participating or spending money on Soccer in our country. I played and love the sort and as a result my son does. If I am an MLS owner I want as many fans of our support as possible in our country. For the sport to continue to grow we need to maximize participation. The birth your age change was strictly for the top 1% of participants in our country not for the rest of the kids. This will have a long lasting affect it just won’t be seen for sometime.
The trap ages are a huge deal also but US soccer knew that when they went in they just didn’t care.

[Anonymous]

A year is a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think everyone agrees that the age strange certainly lowered the number of participants in the sport in our country in established areas and programs. Obviously growing parts of our country are still developing new players as New Soccer communities to. The problem is going to be 10 to 15 years from now with all these kids who stop playing the game who were going to be fans of the sport as parents and their children would be fans of the game may not be participating or spending money on Soccer in our country. I played and love the sort and as a result my son does. If I am an MLS owner I want as many fans of our support as possible in our country. For the sport to continue to grow we need to maximize participation. The birth your age change was strictly for the top 1% of participants in our country not for the rest of the kids. This will have a long lasting affect it just won’t be seen for sometime.
The trap ages are a huge deal also but US soccer knew that when they went in they just didn’t care.

It’s not an issue.

[Anonymous]

Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

I think it would be a good thing to do now. Just fix it to the better system now, when there is a lot in flux.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

It definitely isn’t the time, when people are disinclined to continue paying club fees due to recession and covid19 insecurity. I mean, if us soccer wants to further reduce participation by making teams break up for the second time in 5 years, I guess they can, but it would be a huge mistake, financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

It definitely isn’t the time, when people are disinclined to continue paying club fees due to recession and covid19 insecurity. I mean, if us soccer wants to further reduce participation by making teams break up for the second time in 5 years, I guess they can, but it would be a huge mistake, financially.

People will discontinue paying fees regardless of team structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

It definitely isn’t the time, when people are disinclined to continue paying club fees due to recession and covid19 insecurity. I mean, if us soccer wants to further reduce participation by making teams break up for the second time in 5 years, I guess they can, but it would be a huge mistake, financially.

Have you thought that maybe some kids may stick with soccer versus quitting if the age group changes back to school year? Do you think some clubs might have a better chance weathering impacts from covid if the age groups changes back? It doesn’t matter to me either way. Just wanted to throw it out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

It definitely isn’t the time, when people are disinclined to continue paying club fees due to recession and covid19 insecurity. I mean, if us soccer wants to further reduce participation by making teams break up for the second time in 5 years, I guess they can, but it would be a huge mistake, financially.

Have you thought that maybe some kids may stick with soccer versus quitting if the age group changes back to school year? Do you think some clubs might have a better chance weathering impacts from covid if the age groups changes back? It doesn’t matter to me either way. Just wanted to throw it out there.

My kid will be pretty bummed if his team is broken up again. Some kids like that? Didn’t seem so last time they did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not going to happen now with DA fiasco, but it should change back to school year. Assuming an even birth month distribution 33% of each 8th/9th grade team are without a team during high school soccer season, which is wrong. Then it happens again in 11/12 where 2/3 of the team graduate leaving 1/3 behind to figure out where they are playing. It’s unnecessarily disruptive whereas the birth year does not offer any advantages (alignment with the rest of the world is not correct). Much of the Southern Hemisphere starts school closer to a calendar year basis anyway thus for them they are aligned for both school year and club soccer. Eventually I think they will go back but who knows.

+1

It was a stupid move to begin with.

Yep. It was a darn stupid thing to change. In my view teams should have been free to pick what they wanted to do themselves. That way the vast majority of teams would have stuck with school year. Those teams that wanted to compete internationally would have recruited by birth year, and would have "played up" by a few monmths in domestic competitions; since they were aiming to be elite that should actually have worked well for them.

I'm not sure that moving back at this point is worth it though.

It definitely isn’t the time, when people are disinclined to continue paying club fees due to recession and covid19 insecurity. I mean, if us soccer wants to further reduce participation by making teams break up for the second time in 5 years, I guess they can, but it would be a huge mistake, financially.

Have you thought that maybe some kids may stick with soccer versus quitting if the age group changes back to school year? Do you think some clubs might have a better chance weathering impacts from covid if the age groups changes back? It doesn’t matter to me either way. Just wanted to throw it out there.

Nope, aside from the month or two of kids who benefit, the rest will be pissed. We already lived through this once, it was hugely unpopular, and it would be again.