ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

In the current system it is because they’ve already played a year in a lot of cases and in some years played on bigger fields sooner Playing down isn’t just about age but also experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Dude you are annoying as hell with the RAE crap. If your kid is good, they are good. That’s it. Nothing more to it.

Good relatively to what? There's always someone better. At another club or in another league or in another state or in another country. The your kid is good or not comments are beyond pointless.

A kid is good when all the coaches and scouts and opponents recognize them as such.

The best is a different argument.

If you need someone to tell you are rich, you're not rich.

You have gone completely off the reservation now hahahaha

I've never seen or heard of a good player who isn't acknowledged as such by neutral soccer knowledgeable professionals like coaches and scouts.
Add the opponents who just encountered them

Your analogy to 💰 is asinine

They’re using the same logic when they say their 9th teamer kid is not first team only because of the birth month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

So by your logic...if 5 years old played 11v11 from the start...they would be insanely good.

You realize playing 11 v11 or 9v9 doesn't actually change technical or athletic abilities. Spain does 7v7 until u14..so we should probably destroy Spain because we have more 'experience'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Can you name one thing US Soccer did to reduce the relative age advantage of older kids relative to younger kids in youth soccer age years during or after they switched to calendar year? Cause if RAE was reasonable reduced, the age date change discussion here might have been less than 50 pages, dare I say fewer than 25 pages.

Yes…

1) They level set the age cutoff to align with the vast majority of the rest of the world so they could benchmark talent and development to age similar peers on a basis that could be narrowed down to the day against a “competition level” x axis.

2) They rolled out the USNT “Futures” program that was explicitly aimed at talent ID that factored in RAE to try to reduce the number of kids missed.

3) They funded numerous studies on RAE with research universities.

4) They developed curriculum and punished numerous tools for coaches and talent ID to assist with heightening the awareness and focus of RAE.

Etc etc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

In the current system it is because they’ve already played a year in a lot of cases and in some years played on bigger fields sooner Playing down isn’t just about age but also experience.

--
So it would be ok for a 16 year old to play with 5 year olds...as long as they both just started playing? same experience level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

So by your logic...if 5 years old played 11v11 from the start...they would be insanely good.

You realize playing 11 v11 or 9v9 doesn't actually change technical or athletic abilities. Spain does 7v7 until u14..so we should probably destroy Spain because we have more 'experience'.

No, what I'm saying is these decisions aren't in isolation. They affect children and families who already have invested years in their soccer journey. It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game. You basically shouldn't do that and look to minimize that disruption for those people for such a big change otherwise a lot of people will leave the game earlier than they otherwise would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For club players their last chance to impress is their junior year season. For Trapped players they basically dont have a normal team to play on and have to hope that they have been spotted in their sophomore year.

Trapped players don’t lose their junior season….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

In the current system it is because they’ve already played a year in a lot of cases and in some years played on bigger fields sooner Playing down isn’t just about age but also experience.

--
So it would be ok for a 16 year old to play with 5 year olds...as long as they both just started playing? same experience level.

No, but a player on a top level team playing 11v11 for the first time AND whose played with the same group since 4v4 (maybe half of their lives literally) shouldn't be forced to play with a group of players now playing 9v9 in their first year of 11v11 next season. That would be like repeating a grade and having to make new friends. Of course, teams evolve and kids will face these issues at some point BUT it shouldn't be because of this type of rule change. Sure, it may go well and help that player become a leader and to better development OR maybe they'll just find a new sport, because there's already a lot of downsides to travel soccer and this for many would be just another!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Can you name one thing US Soccer did to reduce the relative age advantage of older kids relative to younger kids in youth soccer age years during or after they switched to calendar year? Cause if RAE was reasonable reduced, the age date change discussion here might have been less than 50 pages, dare I say fewer than 25 pages.

Yes…

1) They level set the age cutoff to align with the vast majority of the rest of the world so they could benchmark talent and development to age similar peers on a basis that could be narrowed down to the day against a “competition level” x axis.

2) They rolled out the USNT “Futures” program that was explicitly aimed at talent ID that factored in RAE to try to reduce the number of kids missed.

3) They funded numerous studies on RAE with research universities.

4) They developed curriculum and punished numerous tools for coaches and talent ID to assist with heightening the awareness and focus of RAE.

Etc etc etc

I don't see any of that actually happening. The goal should be making great players when they hit 18-21. But, the truth is clubs pick teams to win that year. You generally win with the most athletic/ biggest players. So kids that are late birthdays or late developers (but have high technical/soccer iq) are generally put on the B team, and maybe if they stick with it..will be great once they catch up in athletic ability /size. But they have been told they suck for years, despite training...had lower level of coaching and attention from coaches...so good luck to those kids maintaining confidence/ getting noticed.

If I said you have to keep the same team for 5 years...I am guessing coaches would pick entirely different rosters. Its the main reason US Soccer is so poor. We are filled with athletic kids who have low level of technical ability or soccer iq...because none of those abilities got you noticed. Once everyone catches up athletically to them...they have no answer..bc they only learned to play by being faster or more athletic than the competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Can you name one thing US Soccer did to reduce the relative age advantage of older kids relative to younger kids in youth soccer age years during or after they switched to calendar year? Cause if RAE was reasonable reduced, the age date change discussion here might have been less than 50 pages, dare I say fewer than 25 pages.

Yes…

1) They level set the age cutoff to align with the vast majority of the rest of the world so they could benchmark talent and development to age similar peers on a basis that could be narrowed down to the day against a “competition level” x axis.

2) They rolled out the USNT “Futures” program that was explicitly aimed at talent ID that factored in RAE to try to reduce the number of kids missed.

3) They funded numerous studies on RAE with research universities.

4) They developed curriculum and punished numerous tools for coaches and talent ID to assist with heightening the awareness and focus of RAE.

Etc etc etc

If you think this adds up to anything other than zero to support the younger kids in a youth soccer year, you get a paycheck from US Soccer.

Here is the translation:

1. We want the oldest players in youth age ranges to play foreign national teams to try to get a couple of wins. (This is what level set, align and benchmark means here.)

2. We identified the oldest and biggest players a few years earlier to try to beat foreign youth national teams done the road.

3. We funded research to make it seem like we are doing something without doing anything.

4. We told coaches to do as we say not as we do but don't actually except them to listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

So by your logic...if 5 years old played 11v11 from the start...they would be insanely good.

You realize playing 11 v11 or 9v9 doesn't actually change technical or athletic abilities. Spain does 7v7 until u14..so we should probably destroy Spain because we have more 'experience'.

No, what I'm saying is these decisions aren't in isolation. They affect children and families who already have invested years in their soccer journey. It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game. You basically shouldn't do that and look to minimize that disruption for those people for such a big change otherwise a lot of people will leave the game earlier than they otherwise would.

So is it unfair if a team plays 11v11 a year earlier? (I really don't see that as an advantage ..less touches) but apparently that team will basically be playing a year down now?

I doubt it would affect many teams. Most of the teams are 90% first 6 months (which shows the RAE). If a few kids get knocked down...that's not a huge change. Most of the top teams are switching players every year anyways. Especially during puberty...one kid sucks...then he grows and he is great, or vice versa. Its stupid...but its exactly what happens. (It would be a much bigger change at the younger levels..but by age 13 most of the late birthdays have given up/quit the sport).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

So by your logic...if 5 years old played 11v11 from the start...they would be insanely good.

You realize playing 11 v11 or 9v9 doesn't actually change technical or athletic abilities. Spain does 7v7 until u14..so we should probably destroy Spain because we have more 'experience'.

No, what I'm saying is these decisions aren't in isolation. They affect children and families who already have invested years in their soccer journey. It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game. You basically shouldn't do that and look to minimize that disruption for those people for such a big change otherwise a lot of people will leave the game earlier than they otherwise would.

So is it unfair if a team plays 11v11 a year earlier? (I really don't see that as an advantage ..less touches) but apparently that team will basically be playing a year down now?

I doubt it would affect many teams. Most of the teams are 90% first 6 months (which shows the RAE). If a few kids get knocked down...that's not a huge change. Most of the top teams are switching players every year anyways. Especially during puberty...one kid sucks...then he grows and he is great, or vice versa. Its stupid...but its exactly what happens. (It would be a much bigger change at the younger levels..but by age 13 most of the late birthdays have given up/quit the sport).

BUT changing the 12-year window wouldn't eliminate RAE, it'll just move it. And yes top teams switch all the time. Frankly, this change mostly helps them, not the players, who are just asked to jump through another hoop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?

--
It was Aug 1- July 31 for the longest time. It is like that in many countries, including England. January kids have simply been playing down. Maybe if the January-June birthday kids were good...this decision wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, most are just RL players, only playing on the ECNL team, because they are playing down an age group with kids almost 12 months and a grade younger.

How are you January 2011 and playing U14's against other 2011's playing down?

---

You are playing against kids born in December, a January 2011 (13 year old- 8th grader) is playing right now against a December 2011 (12 year old -7th grader). That is called playing down.

How is a December 2011 birthday, playing against a 2012 January birthday, considered playing down (less than a month age difference and same grade)?

So you think that 2-3 weeks provides a huge advantage? but 11-12 months doesn't?

Another way to look at it. This change is essentially asking these soccer players to repeat a grade. If they've played each year from 4v4 and 7v7 and 9v9, they're being asked to play down with an earlier year. Yes, they might be in the same grade in school, BUT it's not the same grade on the soccer field. It's a year behind. In school, that's usually OK in kindergarten. It's not OK later on, especially for an individual what otherwise be seen as an arbitrary rule for the "good of the game."

Also, the trapped season in 8th grade is one half of a year. Those players only miss one 3-month period when their teams in HS also are on "other teams". Looking at it in that way, it's really a similar experience.

That said, I see the overall advantages for SY and think longterm that might be better for the sport. BUT we shouldn't harm individuals already in the current system and phase it in with the younger age groups slowly.

So by your logic...if 5 years old played 11v11 from the start...they would be insanely good.

You realize playing 11 v11 or 9v9 doesn't actually change technical or athletic abilities. Spain does 7v7 until u14..so we should probably destroy Spain because we have more 'experience'.

No, what I'm saying is these decisions aren't in isolation. They affect children and families who already have invested years in their soccer journey. It's like changing the rules in the middle of a game. You basically shouldn't do that and look to minimize that disruption for those people for such a big change otherwise a lot of people will leave the game earlier than they otherwise would.

So is it unfair if a team plays 11v11 a year earlier? (I really don't see that as an advantage ..less touches) but apparently that team will basically be playing a year down now?

I doubt it would affect many teams. Most of the teams are 90% first 6 months (which shows the RAE). If a few kids get knocked down...that's not a huge change. Most of the top teams are switching players every year anyways. Especially during puberty...one kid sucks...then he grows and he is great, or vice versa. Its stupid...but its exactly what happens. (It would be a much bigger change at the younger levels..but by age 13 most of the late birthdays have given up/quit the sport).

BUT changing the 12-year window wouldn't eliminate RAE, it'll just move it. And yes top teams switch all the time. Frankly, this change mostly helps them, not the players, who are just asked to jump through another hoop.

Switching from BY to SY every day 3-4 years would be a comical way to address RAE