US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two age groups through HS is frankly stupid. Kids should have leveled off the difference by then and for those outliers. 50th percentile is pretty established by 15. The extremes at those ages are just not great enough to require two separate age groups. I have agreed that two age groups would solve a lot of problems but only at the ages where 6 months of growth can be forever for many kids. That is in the elementary ages but not beyond.

Once you hit middle school age is much less a predictor of a kids size or growth rate and it becomes increasingly difficult to base age groups on that variable. But bio banding can help in the most extreme of situations.

Football through middle school is based on size limits. So it is done.

[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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two age groups through HS is frankly stupid. Kids should have leveled off the difference by then and for those outliers. 50th percentile is pretty established by 15. The extremes at those ages are just not great enough to require two separate age groups. I have agreed that two age groups would solve a lot of problems but only at the ages where 6 months of growth can be forever for many kids. That is in the elementary ages but not beyond.

Once you hit middle school age is much less a predictor of a kids size or growth rate and it becomes increasingly difficult to base age groups on that variable. But bio banding can help in the most extreme of situations.

Football through middle school is based on size limits. So it is done.

Fine. Combine the age groups back into one at U17 (16 year olds). That would be a great funnel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

When you talk about beyond elementary school, are you only talking about girls? Because my kid weighed 80 pounds when he started high school and had been playing soccer against boys with full on mustaches for at least three years. Middle school is when you need it most. We aren't just talking about size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Not the poster you are responding too, but I wonder how your proposal would work in terms of building teams? Whatever the answer is, part of the problem with the fall birthday kids is that their training keeps getting worse when they are demoted from top teams, so it all becomes a self fulfilling prophesy that they aren't that good or aren't working hard enough. How can you ensure that clubs devote attention to every age group and not have the later year age group become the de facto second team?

[Anonymous]

to not too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Sorry, but even with boys the variance does tighten. As they get older it is still far easier to deal with the extreme outliers than an entire age cohort. Because you obviously have a smaller player you might be missing the bigger picture yourself.

There are more kids NOT like your kid than there are kids LIKE your kid. It is an accommodation that frankly cuts right through the middle of kids who actually ARE or closer to average. Your plan breaks down with simple distribution and then the complexity of fielding teams properly. You also assume that soccer coaches care if they lose "small" kids. You're ultimately competing with their bias against smaller players. They might care in elementary school but through middle school they are selecting from technical, tactical and yes, genetic lottery winners. There has always been room for talented smaller kids but there is a real world clock for those who wish to play in college.

And regardless of size a coach can tell if a player can play. I'm with you up until middle school, girl or boy. I also recognize the problem but the solution should be geared towards those more extreme cases and to institute a arbitrary size cutoff through sophomore year is unnecessary. It really won't help in the way that you believe it would because again, the variance tightens more and more in the middle where MOST kids really are whether they are boys or girls.

[Anonymous]

It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Sorry, but even with boys the variance does tighten. As they get older it is still far easier to deal with the extreme outliers than an entire age cohort. Because you obviously have a smaller player you might be missing the bigger picture yourself.

There are more kids NOT like your kid than there are kids LIKE your kid. It is an accommodation that frankly cuts right through the middle of kids who actually ARE or closer to average. Your plan breaks down with simple distribution and then the complexity of fielding teams properly. You also assume that soccer coaches care if they lose "small" kids. You're ultimately competing with their bias against smaller players. They might care in elementary school but through middle school they are selecting from technical, tactical and yes, genetic lottery winners. There has always been room for talented smaller kids but there is a real world clock for those who wish to play in college.

And regardless of size a coach can tell if a player can play. I'm with you up until middle school, girl or boy. I also recognize the problem but the solution should be geared towards those more extreme cases and to institute a arbitrary size cutoff through sophomore year is unnecessary. It really won't help in the way that you believe it would because again, the variance tightens more and more in the middle where MOST kids really are whether they are boys or girls.

Actually, it isn't so much size as simply development, physical and mental. I've watched kids of all sizes born later in the year drop out of soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Not the poster you are responding too, but I wonder how your proposal would work in terms of building teams? Whatever the answer is, part of the problem with the fall birthday kids is that their training keeps getting worse when they are demoted from top teams, so it all becomes a self fulfilling prophesy that they aren't that good or aren't working hard enough. How can you ensure that clubs devote attention to every age group and not have the later year age group become the de facto second team?

They are two separate teams. Separate coaches, schedules, etc.

It starts at U9 tryouts. Jan-Jun over there. July-Dec over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Sorry, but even with boys the variance does tighten. As they get older it is still far easier to deal with the extreme outliers than an entire age cohort. Because you obviously have a smaller player you might be missing the bigger picture yourself.

There are more kids NOT like your kid than there are kids LIKE your kid. It is an accommodation that frankly cuts right through the middle of kids who actually ARE or closer to average. Your plan breaks down with simple distribution and then the complexity of fielding teams properly. You also assume that soccer coaches care if they lose "small" kids. You're ultimately competing with their bias against smaller players. They might care in elementary school but through middle school they are selecting from technical, tactical and yes, genetic lottery winners. There has always been room for talented smaller kids but there is a real world clock for those who wish to play in college.

And regardless of size a coach can tell if a player can play. I'm with you up until middle school, girl or boy. I also recognize the problem but the solution should be geared towards those more extreme cases and to institute a arbitrary size cutoff through sophomore year is unnecessary. It really won't help in the way that you believe it would because again, the variance tightens more and more in the middle where MOST kids really are whether they are boys or girls.

Actually, it isn't so much size as simply development, physical and mental. I've watched kids of all sizes born later in the year drop out of soccer.

Theyre dropping out because they are getting regulated too soon. That is the issue.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Then six month age groups. Double the teams. Double the paying customer. Double the size of the pool. Keep them in the funnel longer.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that.