US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With COVID having such a major impact to youth soccer, no way in hell is anyone stupid enough to do the age group change.

I would agree, but I think you underestimate the stupidity of US Soccer.

People act like changing back the ages will do something magical. It just creates chaos and different issues. Yes, it's great for kids that are friends to play together at the beginning if possible, but even then who says they will be on the same team if school year? How about making more friends that are on your team now? My child only played with a couple friends before going to club and now has his school friends and his club team friends, none of which go to his school. His passion for soccer has only increased.

It has been articulated over and over again. It isn't just about friends playing together. The move would benefit the trapped 8th graders and HS seniors whose teams have moved on.

Those 8th graders have been with the same teammates since second or third grade, I fail to see how kicking them off the team benefits them

The cutoff always has trapped kids, it just depends on which end of the spectrum. There is little consequence at 8th grade but for trapped seniors trying to get recruited it is far more impactful.

DP. Kids didn’t get trapped the same way when it went by school grade, because you didn’t have issue of most of your team playing high school soccer rather than travel for a season when you were still in middle school, or most of your team graduating high school and leaving you behind when you still have a year left.

Trapped is trapped and frankly is league dependent. Some leagues don't shut down for HS soccer and the option to continue on the club team is team, club, league specific. Also, the true number of kids trapped just isn't worth the disruption to still never ultimately solve the problem.

The problem is in trying to reconcile two independent organizations. HS sports are state specific and there is just no need for travel sports to do anything to accommodate HS soccer.

And frankly, the worst case for a trapped 8th grader is 3 months without their specific team when there really just isn't that much on the line. It isn't US Soccer's role to fix something to accommodate another organization.

Have you lived through this? It is a big deal in 8th grade and senior year. Even worse, I've seen the pressure to keep playing as a team for the 8th graders through the fall HS season which has resulted in numerous and some serious injuries. The switch was made to aid in identifying top talent at the national level. That's a small percentage of players for purposes of the national teams. On the other hand, many more players aim to play in college, and the birth year cut off hurts them.

Birth year does not hurt the "trapped" 8th graders. While they may miss 3 months of regular season with their specific team they do get to play on the younger composite team. Not only that, but the showcases go on regardless of HS soccer so they actually get 5 years of showcasing compared to 4 for the rest of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Great observations,

If you are bored go and look at some of the different "good" teams. 75% of the team is made up of Jan-June birth months. I have listened to both sides and its pretty much even when i ask a parents what they think its usually an opinion formulated on the birth date of the children they have. Most kids if the are even lucky enough will play college and that is based on school year. I do feel bad for the very late birthday months and i do think they get the short end of the stick. School year should dictate the teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to make teams based on a 6 month age band. Jan-June and July to Dec. That would solve a lot of problems.

Most of you should have noticed that the top teams consist of players primarily from the Jan- June birth years...otherords kids with the higher graduation year. For example, look at any U17 ECNL or GA team. About 75 percent of the players are Class of 2022 (some cases more).. About 25 percent are Class of 2023. Same for any 05 team as well.

The only thing the age change accomplished was to change the RAE to benefit the Jan - May birth month kid verse the Sept- Dec birth month kids in order to align birth months with international competition standards.

From a players prospective, it caused the kids with the later birth months to get washed out.

From a development prospective, this is horrible because we are awarding the older player while discarding a large portion of the younger players while kids are still developing and growing. So forth and so on.

Go to six age bands and double the amount of teams per age group. That will begin to solve any of problems. Very simple.

This would only matter and work through about 6-7th grade. It should absolutely be done for elementary age players but not so much beyond that.

Other solutions like bio banding should be looked into for truly small at age players. But for girls, once you hit 15 97% of the growing is done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make teams based on a 6 month age band. Jan-June and July to Dec. That would solve a lot of problems.

Most of you should have noticed that the top teams consist of players primarily from the Jan- June birth years...otherords kids with the higher graduation year. For example, look at any U17 ECNL or GA team. About 75 percent of the players are Class of 2022 (some cases more).. About 25 percent are Class of 2023. Same for any 05 team as well.

The only thing the age change accomplished was to change the RAE to benefit the Jan - May birth month kid verse the Sept- Dec birth month kids in order to align birth months with international competition standards.

From a players prospective, it caused the kids with the later birth months to get washed out.

From a development prospective, this is horrible because we are awarding the older player while discarding a large portion of the younger players while kids are still developing and growing. So forth and so on.

Go to six age bands and double the amount of teams per age group. That will begin to solve any of problems. Very simple.

That would be fantastic and save the June to December kids from getting discarded. I think that the kids currently in high school born in the second half of the year are particularly disadvantaged due to the switch. The January/February born players were still in the older group under the old age group, and then essentially got an extra year at the same level when the groups changed. The Sept/Oct/Nov kids essentially lost a year, and were more likely to be dropped to second or lower teams, many of them quitting after a few years.

I watched it happen. Its is obvious as day and night. Before, the age change, majority of top teams were Sept- Dec. The age change did NOTHING but change the benefactors.

If they care about development and participation, change to six month age bands. It helps everyone

[Anonymous]

If you have a child or children then you should understand that Bio-Banding is great for size but who is taking the mental aspect into play. We assume a child is big that they must be more mature. Children are in the grade level they are in not only for size but mental abilities as well. Why should kids play to a certain age at grade level and switch only to switch back at college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make teams based on a 6 month age band. Jan-June and July to Dec. That would solve a lot of problems.

Most of you should have noticed that the top teams consist of players primarily from the Jan- June birth years...otherords kids with the higher graduation year. For example, look at any U17 ECNL or GA team. About 75 percent of the players are Class of 2022 (some cases more).. About 25 percent are Class of 2023. Same for any 05 team as well.

The only thing the age change accomplished was to change the RAE to benefit the Jan - May birth month kid verse the Sept- Dec birth month kids in order to align birth months with international competition standards.

From a players prospective, it caused the kids with the later birth months to get washed out.

From a development prospective, this is horrible because we are awarding the older player while discarding a large portion of the younger players while kids are still developing and growing. So forth and so on.

Go to six age bands and double the amount of teams per age group. That will begin to solve any of problems. Very simple.

This would only matter and work through about 6-7th grade. It should absolutely be done for elementary age players but not so much beyond that.

Other solutions like bio banding should be looked into for truly small at age players. But for girls, once you hit 15 97% of the growing is done.

Yes, it might not be as much of a big deal for girls. For boys it is a very big deal. God forbid you are a boy with a fall birthday who is also small.

One of my kids is an August birthday who potentially might not fall within the birth year of his classmates (cut off for school is September 1). I liked the old age group because it kids like mine a choice. My son was happier and did better playing slightly "up" with his classmates than playing as the oldest on a younger team. There is a small segment of kids who might fall into this group with school year cutoffs, as opposed to 4 plus months of kids who are disadvantaged with the birth year cutoff.

It does get harder playing up for boys with the disparity in growth during the middle school years.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]If you have a child or children then you should understand that Bio-Banding is great for size but who is taking the mental aspect into play. We assume a child is big that they must be more mature. Children are in the grade level they are in not only for size but mental abilities as well. Why should kids play to a certain age at grade level and switch only to switch back at college?[/quote]

So a immature big kid should play with/against smaller kids? How does that help the player mentally and technically?

And bio banding a bigger kid does not mean playing up on the "A team" either. But in youth soccer kids should not be put at a developmental advantage or disadvantage due to size. Bigger, faster kids often fail to learn the technical or tactical skills necessary when they are not required of them to succeed when their athleticism gives them a unnatural advantage.

And, by the same token, smaller kids also do not learn confidence as much as they learn survival and often get phased out or quit the sport out of frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to make teams based on a 6 month age band. Jan-June and July to Dec. That would solve a lot of problems.

Most of you should have noticed that the top teams consist of players primarily from the Jan- June birth years...otherords kids with the higher graduation year. For example, look at any U17 ECNL or GA team. About 75 percent of the players are Class of 2022 (some cases more).. About 25 percent are Class of 2023. Same for any 05 team as well.

The only thing the age change accomplished was to change the RAE to benefit the Jan - May birth month kid verse the Sept- Dec birth month kids in order to align birth months with international competition standards.

From a players prospective, it caused the kids with the later birth months to get washed out.

From a development prospective, this is horrible because we are awarding the older player while discarding a large portion of the younger players while kids are still developing and growing. So forth and so on.

Go to six age bands and double the amount of teams per age group. That will begin to solve any of problems. Very simple.

This would only matter and work through about 6-7th grade. It should absolutely be done for elementary age players but not so much beyond that.

Other solutions like bio banding should be looked into for truly small at age players. But for girls, once you hit 15 97% of the growing is done.

Yes, it might not be as much of a big deal for girls. For boys it is a very big deal. God forbid you are a boy with a fall birthday who is also small.

One of my kids is an August birthday who potentially might not fall within the birth year of his classmates (cut off for school is September 1). I liked the old age group because it kids like mine a choice. My son was happier and did better playing slightly "up" with his classmates than playing as the oldest on a younger team. There is a small segment of kids who might fall into this group with school year cutoffs, as opposed to 4 plus months of kids who are disadvantaged with the birth year cutoff.

It does get harder playing up for boys with the disparity in growth during the middle school years.

While boys grow later it simply becomes increasingly difficult to maintain that many age groups through middle and high school. bio banding based on actual growth percentile is the best solution for kids who fall into the extremes of the growth bell curve. There is no need at those older ages to maintain dual age groups for players who fall outside 75%-85% of the general population.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]If you have a child or children then you should understand that Bio-Banding is great for size but who is taking the mental aspect into play. We assume a child is big that they must be more mature. Children are in the grade level they are in not only for size but mental abilities as well. Why should kids play to a certain age at grade level and switch only to switch back at college?[/quote]

The point really isn't to give anyone an advantage. It is to even out the advantage given to larger kids. Bio banding also isn't about large versus small, but physical development (where you are currently versus where you are going to end up).

The best players with the best soccer IQ, regardless of size, should be on better teams.

Based on my experience with a young, small player who has now graduated, the issue of maturity and soccer IQ is critical in developing players. What tends to happen is that the bigger, stronger, or more quickly developing players are picked for the higher teams, while smaller players are dropped down. Unfortunately, getting off that second team isn't a matter of working harder. if you are a skilled, small, and smart player playing with second or third team players, it is hard to be effective. The conditions you are used to on a better team, including players making runs and using the width of the field, won't exist on the lower teams. Vision and movement off the ball don't matter when everyone is kicking the ball and running straight ahead, or when your teammates are stealing the ball from you. That's why smaller, more skilled players wind up quitting.

Bio banding could help this by allowing later developing players to play on higher level but younger teams.

[Anonymous]

Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

Absurd. I'm the who brought up six months age groups. Bio banding is ridiculous. Yet another ill conceived thought by US Soccer. Everyone wants to ot smart each other. Its very very simple.

Six Month age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

Absurd. I'm the who brought up six months age groups. Bio banding is ridiculous. Yet another ill conceived thought by US Soccer. Everyone wants to ot smart each other. Its very very simple.

Six Month age groups.

You can have both but based on general percentiles in growth there is just not the need for the added complexity of two age groups per birth year beyond elementary school. Target the kids who fall outside of the norm and find the best fit for them.

There is no silver bullet to the issue and there is little incentive or need to create more complexity when simpler solutions would suffice.

The size difference based solely on 6 months dissipates after elementary school and size difference is based more on the genetic lottery than the predictability of a birthdate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

Absurd. I'm the who brought up six months age groups. Bio banding is ridiculous. Yet another ill conceived thought by US Soccer. Everyone wants to ot smart each other. Its very very simple.

Six Month age groups.

Exactly what is ridiculous about placing a kid who falls into the 10-15% on either end of their growth spectrum in a age that suits their physical size? Why should an entire age group be affected to suit the needs of so few players?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

Absurd. I'm the who brought up six months age groups. Bio banding is ridiculous. Yet another ill conceived thought by US Soccer. Everyone wants to ot smart each other. Its very very simple.

Six Month age groups.

You can have both but based on general percentiles in growth there is just not the need for the added complexity of two age groups per birth year beyond elementary school. Target the kids who fall outside of the norm and find the best fit for them.

There is no silver bullet to the issue and there is little incentive or need to create more complexity when simpler solutions would suffice.

The size difference based solely on 6 months dissipates after elementary school and size difference is based more on the genetic lottery than the predictability of a birthdate.

I gave you a clear example that there is. I will say it again. Look at any U17 or U16 ECNL or GA roster. Pick whatever club, state, team you want and look at the roster. The vast majority of the team will be comprised of the earlier graduation year which means they have the earlier birth months...hence they are older.

So where did all the later birth months go?

This is common sense. I challenge anyone to put forward a reason this is a bad idea?

By the way, most girls stop growing vertically by 16. That does not mean they stop developing.

And by the way, once you turn 16 in this country, your fate is typically sealed. Why?

Six month age groups would double the amount of teams and thus double the participation. The more kids we have participating the better off we will be at developing talent. There will still by a pyramid to funnel players. The pyramid will just be bigger. Less kids will be funnelled out of the system and it will happen at a much later age.