ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

No. It doesn't. But the amount of people that pretends it doesn't exist is astonishing. ( It would make it easier for kids to play with classmates). If nothing else...maybe it will force people to consider what we consider 'talent'. Maybe that reflection will create some change.

[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:

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

Seems like actually the ideal way would be to have teams limited to 6 months windows. Unfortunately, soccer just isn't that popular to support it that way, although that's what ODP is now trying with "older" and "younger" teams. BUT I know from experience it's not working out that way. What I saw was all the best-skilled offensive players were placed on the "older" team regardless of age. But the whole point of ODP is to ID the best players, period (and get enough of other people to sign up to make it work financially -- kinda the whole elite travel soccer biz model, frankly).

[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:

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.

No. It doesn't. But the amount of people that pretends it doesn't exist is astonishing. ( It would make it easier for kids to play with classmates). If nothing else...maybe it will force people to consider what we consider 'talent'. Maybe that reflection will create some change.

Except in travel soccer, players rarely play with classmates. They play with people usually from across a greater metro area. They don't every play with classmates until they get to HS unless they do local rec (which is based that way anyways). Being on a trap team isn't necessarily bad for development. Often, HS programs aren't that good OR top heavy where freshmen wouldn't play anyway, so even 9th-greaders will play on a trapped team to keep training with their club. And, besides that, it's like 2 months -- which is almost nothing in the year-round world of travel soccer.

[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:

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.

No. It doesn't. But the amount of people that pretends it doesn't exist is astonishing. ( It would make it easier for kids to play with classmates). If nothing else...maybe it will force people to consider what we consider 'talent'. Maybe that reflection will create some change.

90% might be true but not my experience. I do see a bias toward taller, more athletic players regardless of age. But usually those are favored for a top team vs. a B team. I think that's why we're seeing a lot of players, now even girls, test the waters and go pro as teenagers, because the current system doesn't favor them as individuals to reach their full potential (it's profit-based where you pay for everything).

[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:

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.

No. It doesn't. But the amount of people that pretends it doesn't exist is astonishing. ( It would make it easier for kids to play with classmates). If nothing else...maybe it will force people to consider what we consider 'talent'. Maybe that reflection will create some change.

Except in travel soccer, players rarely play with classmates. They play with people usually from across a greater metro area. They don't every play with classmates until they get to HS unless they do local rec (which is based that way anyways). Being on a trap team isn't necessarily bad for development. Often, HS programs aren't that good OR top heavy where freshmen wouldn't play anyway, so even 9th-greaders will play on a trapped team to keep training with their club. And, besides that, it's like 2 months -- which is almost nothing in the year-round world of travel soccer.

Playing with schoolmates is a big deal when they are 5(which creates more players..competition).

HS soccer is not 2 months long. And that is 4 months of ‘experience’.

In any event, that’s not an argument for staying BY. Keeping teams as is is not a reason to keep BY..there to play competitive soccer- not play with friends. January birthdays will benefit by playing against better competition, thereby increasing the level of our usynt.

[Anonymous]

this was just posted on the MA chat forum... those who want the change will find hope. Those who don't will dismiss as scuttlebutt...

"I am a coach and board president of a town soccer club in NH. Nothing has been shared with myself, nor has it been shared with the President of NHSL. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other, just that the news has not been shared with our state."

[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?

You think You can just say two kids born in the same year are playing same age group yet one is playing down?
Are you certifiably insane?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't going to August 1st or July 1st just shift who is now Q1 and who is now Q4?

So there will always be a 11+ months difference between the oldest and the youngest in a SY grade?

[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:

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.

No. It doesn't. But the amount of people that pretends it doesn't exist is astonishing. ( It would make it easier for kids to play with classmates). If nothing else...maybe it will force people to consider what we consider 'talent'. Maybe that reflection will create some change.

Except in travel soccer, players rarely play with classmates. They play with people usually from across a greater metro area. They don't every play with classmates until they get to HS unless they do local rec (which is based that way anyways). Being on a trap team isn't necessarily bad for development. Often, HS programs aren't that good OR top heavy where freshmen wouldn't play anyway, so even 9th-greaders will play on a trapped team to keep training with their club. And, besides that, it's like 2 months -- which is almost nothing in the year-round world of travel soccer.

Playing with schoolmates is a big deal when they are 5(which creates more players..competition).

HS soccer is not 2 months long. And that is 4 months of ‘experience’.

In any event, that’s not an argument for staying BY. Keeping teams as is is not a reason to keep BY..there to play competitive soccer- not play with friends. January birthdays will benefit by playing against better competition, thereby increasing the level of our usynt.

I agree that SY might be better in the long run vs. BY. What I don't think is smart is just changing it all at once. They should phase it in with younger age groups and roll it up that way. That would minimize the disruption for people in the current system.

HS -- at least in my state -- is 3 months at most -- if your team goes far in the playoffs. Otherwise it's very similar to the travel season at the same time -- whch is barely longer than 2. Again, my point here is HS teams are very similar to trapped teams -- a collection of players of different ages thrown together for a season. Playing club, you still spend way more time with that team, training sometimes over the summer and the opposite side of the HS season and winter.

[Anonymous]

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!

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

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?

You think You can just say two kids born in the same year are playing same age group yet one is playing down?
Are you certifiably insane?

It’s the same logic- people are arguing that under SY, their jan 2012 kid would have to play up.

Is someone born December 31 2011 a year older than January 1 2012? They are playing down bc born different birth years.

I am just pointing how stupid they sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't going to August 1st or July 1st just shift who is now Q1 and who is now Q4?

So there will always be a 11+ months difference between the oldest and the youngest in a SY grade?

Yes. The only reason it was changed was to get more January birthdays on the USYNT. Those kids were not the best players on their team..so they didn’t get noticed. By moving to birth year/ those kids now appear to be better. They should move to SY to increase participation and 7v7 sided games until u13, to make the RAE less influential. Would probably be good to move to teams every two age groups. U7, U9, etc. that way younger one year and older the next. Forced to develop different skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:this was just posted on the MA chat forum... those who want the change will find hope. Those who don't will dismiss as scuttlebutt...

"I am a coach and board president of a town soccer club in NH. Nothing has been shared with myself, nor has it been shared with the President of NHSL. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other, just that the news has not been shared with our state."

Dude… it’s not happening.

The Facebook post has real people with faces to names and they are saying they’ve received emails in SC, AL, MO…
It’s a done deal bro. just not the deal you wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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?

You think You can just say two kids born in the same year are playing same age group yet one is playing down?
Are you certifiably insane?

It’s the same logic- people are arguing that under SY, their jan 2012 kid would have to play up.

Is someone born December 31 2011 a year older than January 1 2012? They are playing down bc born different birth years.

I am just pointing how stupid they sound.

That would be 1 day. BUT in the current soccer world, the Dec. 31, 2011 player on a top team likely has played a whole year longer and is currently in their second season at 11v11, perhaps with ECNL or GA or Elite 64 or National League, while the Jan. 1 player is just tackling 11v11 for the 1st time. Now can you see how some might see that asking that Dec. 31, 2011 player to now join the the Jan. 1, 2012 team as playing down? It's down in terms of experience and from where they current are at, not in age. That's why they should phase any change in with younger players, first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this was just posted on the MA chat forum... those who want the change will find hope. Those who don't will dismiss as scuttlebutt...

"I am a coach and board president of a town soccer club in NH. Nothing has been shared with myself, nor has it been shared with the President of NHSL. Doesn't mean anything one way or the other, just that the news has not been shared with our state."

Dude… it’s not happening.

The Facebook post has real people with faces to names and they are saying they’ve received emails in SC, AL, MO…
It’s a done deal bro. just not the deal you wanted.

Are you referencing the Facebook posts that point commit to no change for 25? If it's not happening why leave open 26?