ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

This isn’t true, this is “made up parade of horribles.”

The vast majority quit at 12/13. So if you’re a parent of an 8-10 year old who was told they suck over and over again from 8-10, you have a parenting problem, not a “US Soccer” problem, you have a club and coach problem, not a “US Soccer” problem.

Where is the personal accountability? This strikes me as the same mindset as the Bethesda parents who are just all in a tizzy because their 15 year old isn’t getting Lamine skills from their 1.5hour 3x a week team practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MSYSA (Maryland)
There will be no change for the coming 2025/26 seasonal year (begins August 1, 2025).
Starting in the fall of 2026, members and leagues will have reasonable flexibility to choose the best registration option for their participants.

If these are all coming from USYS, why is Maryland the only one that says

“Starting in the fall of 2026, members and leagues will have reasonable flexibility to choose the best registration option for their participants.“

Michigan and Missouri didn’t have that

[Anonymous]

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance:

Denial: An early stage where someone might say "BY won't affect us"

Anger: Someone might feel angry because BY won't let them play down for wins

Bargaining: Someone might feel helpless and try to gain a sense of control by focusing on their regrets or personal faults

Depression: A stage of grief

Acceptance: A stage where someone realizes BY is happening and tries to figure out how to move forward

Which stage are all the nutballs holding onto spelling errors as the reason why SY isn't happening.

Hahahahahaha... Free entertainment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It will always be open for discussion until it passes. If it passes for 26/27 then ECNL and GAL should try to implement the changes in fall 2025. They are only “revisiting in 26/27”….forget about it.

You’ve created the Cliff Notes for pages 300-999 for this thread.

[Anonymous]

Or.... the source should be the top not the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No that doesn’t make sense.
So if I played my 2014s up in 11v11 next year - it would be unfair?

What you do with your 2014s has no bearing in my example. What I've heard what people are complaining about with the possible change is they don't want to by rule get forced to a new team that has younger players/likely less experience. I'm just sharing this example to illustrate the dynamics at work -- as well as the concerns -- of individual players within the current system. And if you think clubs -- who largely care about fielding the best teams possible and are reportedly limit younger players staying on their BY teams by rule -- are going to let that Dec. 31 stay with their team, I've a bridge to sell you!

But your argument is that experience playing 11v11 matters…not age difference. So if I played my 2014s up..they all have a year of playing against 2013s 11v11…and it would be unfair for other 2014s to be forced to play against them?

It’s your logic.

(Does a December 2014 playing on a top team have an advantage over a 2015…maybe because they have been playing at a higher level. Not because of experience. I could start my kid playing with they are 2..doesn’t mean their age group should change.)
(A 2014 girl playing with a boys team..or a 2014 girl playing up on the 2013s also will generally be better ..doesn’t mean they should not be able to play with the age group anymore.).

Not PP, but the logic you’re proposing is actually sound. The reason football doesn’t do this has nothing to do with an inability to learn space and soccer iq, and more to do with maximizing touches and technique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No that doesn’t make sense.
So if I played my 2014s up in 11v11 next year - it would be unfair?

What you do with your 2014s has no bearing in my example. What I've heard what people are complaining about with the possible change is they don't want to by rule get forced to a new team that has younger players/likely less experience. I'm just sharing this example to illustrate the dynamics at work -- as well as the concerns -- of individual players within the current system. And if you think clubs -- who largely care about fielding the best teams possible and are reportedly limit younger players staying on their BY teams by rule -- are going to let that Dec. 31 stay with their team, I've a bridge to sell you!

But your argument is that experience playing 11v11 matters…not age difference. So if I played my 2014s up..they all have a year of playing against 2013s 11v11…and it would be unfair for other 2014s to be forced to play against them?

It’s your logic.

(Does a December 2014 playing on a top team have an advantage over a 2015…maybe because they have been playing at a higher level. Not because of experience. I could start my kid playing with they are 2..doesn’t mean their age group should change.)
(A 2014 girl playing with a boys team..or a 2014 girl playing up on the 2013s also will generally be better ..doesn’t mean they should not be able to play with the age group anymore.).

I do think it makes sense that those players SHOULD be able to play together (they will in HS, btw, currently). After all, they are the same age. An arbitrary rule keeps them apart. BUT should an arbitrary rule FORCE them to play together? That doesn't make sense either, especially when dealing with players in the CURRENT system.

Yes, I'm arguing experience matters AND not just 11v11. The Dec. 31 2011 player, likely had another full season before the Jan. 1, 2012 player. It matters to those players and families, especially if they are now on a top team and in a top league (despite all those who follow your shenanigan examples to improve themselves outside the normal pathway). They, especially since they are smaller than their 2011 peers, have earned their place (hello, national league motto). I've heard their frustration just at the possibility of what to them would be an arbitrary rule change that would basically lead them to leave their current team (who they have played with for years) for one with players with likely less experience. There are going to be told -- hey, here's your chance to shine as a leader with your grade -- except we live in a soccer culture where to get anywhere, you need to play UP and EARLIER (if you can either through ability OR political connection). It's so ironic that this change is being heralded to improve player development -- but it WILL come at the expense of the development of some players in the current system. That's why the change should be with the players and families in minds and done slowly over the course of age groups and years, and not quickly so some huge profit-making club so they can use this to get a leg up on the competition.

[Anonymous]

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!

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.

This isn’t true, this is “made up parade of horribles.”

The vast majority quit at 12/13. So if you’re a parent of an 8-10 year old who was told they suck over and over again from 8-10, you have a parenting problem, not a “US Soccer” problem, you have a club and coach problem, not a “US Soccer” problem.

Where is the personal accountability? This strikes me as the same mindset as the Bethesda parents who are just all in a tizzy because their 15 year old isn’t getting Lamine skills from their 1.5hour 3x a week team practice.

If I was a coach, I would want to say that RAE in soccer is created by parents but wouldn't say it because I don't think anybody would be stupid enough to believe it.

[Anonymous]

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!

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.

This isn’t true, this is “made up parade of horribles.”

The vast majority quit at 12/13. So if you’re a parent of an 8-10 year old who was told they suck over and over again from 8-10, you have a parenting problem, not a “US Soccer” problem, you have a club and coach problem, not a “US Soccer” problem.

Where is the personal accountability? This strikes me as the same mindset as the Bethesda parents who are just all in a tizzy because their 15 year old isn’t getting Lamine skills from their 1.5hour 3x a week team practice.

The stats speak for themselves. I have 1 late birthday on my team. Looking at the rosters 90% of the top 2 teams for each age group is Q1Q2 birthdays.

Sorry, RAE is real- your kid is not good- just older than their competition. Put them in a group with kids just 5 months older...and they can no longer compete.

[Anonymous]

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!

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.

This isn’t true, this is “made up parade of horribles.”

The vast majority quit at 12/13. So if you’re a parent of an 8-10 year old who was told they suck over and over again from 8-10, you have a parenting problem, not a “US Soccer” problem, you have a club and coach problem, not a “US Soccer” problem.

Where is the personal accountability? This strikes me as the same mindset as the Bethesda parents who are just all in a tizzy because their 15 year old isn’t getting Lamine skills from their 1.5hour 3x a week team practice.

You are all over the place here. So RAE is a parent problem? I am pretty sure is just a result of choosing one date to cutoff over another.

As to training- yes kids should be training outside of practice. Most of the early birthdays don’t practice extra/ they rely on being older- stronger/ faster. That’s why they lack the technical ability and would get knocked off the team if it goes to SY..which is evidently why you are so concerned.

[Anonymous]

Not to encourage this roller coaster ride but: https://files.constantcontact.com/faa620c7001/8f1d1a6f-efec-4134-872d-4e995450d16c.pdf?rdr=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to encourage this roller coaster ride but: https://files.constantcontact.com/faa620c7001/8f1d1a6f-efec-4134-872d-4e995450d16c.pdf?rdr=true

This is the first thing posted here that seems legit. Sounds like utter chaos and further fragmentation. Well done, US Soccer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to encourage this roller coaster ride but: https://files.constantcontact.com/faa620c7001/8f1d1a6f-efec-4134-872d-4e995450d16c.pdf?rdr=true

This is the first thing posted here that seems legit. Sounds like utter chaos and further fragmentation. Well done, US Soccer!

Also sounds to me like ECNL got what they wanted? Permission to make their change in a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to encourage this roller coaster ride but: https://files.constantcontact.com/faa620c7001/8f1d1a6f-efec-4134-872d-4e995450d16c.pdf?rdr=true

So, in light of the joint statement, looks like AYSO/USCS/USYS will be SY Fall 26. MLS likely the hold out to remain BY. All eyes on GA.

[Anonymous]

Which = further fragmentation left to soccer bureaucrats in all 50 states + different leagues + club directors + crazy parents + more money required to play in all these satisfying options