US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

it's insanely complex for not much benefit. Everyone is sorry that your kid was born at the wrong time of the year. The next time you want your own little Marinovich, be careful about when you conceive

[Anonymous]

Birth year is the best way to go. Its much easier to say everyone all the 08s or all the 09s .

Rather than having possible confusion like all kids born in 08 but before December 3rd . All other kids born in 08 after December 1st plus some of the kids born in 09 but not all kids. and oh yeah don't forget about the 07s that were born after December 1st .

Plus if you use school year so you kids can play with classmates. Every class has the few kids that are a year older due to various reasons failed grade , new to country, or starting a year late because parents didn't prepare their kids at age 4 and 5. So that doesn't work out either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Birth year is the best way to go. Its much easier to say everyone all the 08s or all the 09s .

Rather than having possible confusion like all kids born in 08 but before December 3rd . All other kids born in 08 after December 1st plus some of the kids born in 09 but not all kids. and oh yeah don't forget about the 07s that were born after December 1st .

Plus if you use school year so you kids can play with classmates. Every class has the few kids that are a year older due to various reasons failed grade , new to country, or starting a year late because parents didn't prepare their kids at age 4 and 5. So that doesn't work out either.

Totally agree. +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year. Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year. Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong

that's totally correct, but why stop at 6 months, lets have birth month age groups. Just think how proud DD will be when her team captures the Jeff cup in the U10January platinum division- granted it was a two team field and a 6 on 7 game because fielding teams is hard, but who cares- developmentally appropriate winning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year. Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong

that's totally correct, but why stop at 6 months, lets have birth month age groups. Just think how proud DD will be when her team captures the Jeff cup in the U10January platinum division- granted it was a two team field and a 6 on 7 game because fielding teams is hard, but who cares- developmentally appropriate winning!

Going to extremes to prove a point in counter productive. Fielding teams are not hard. Maybe its time for your baby club to grow up.

[Anonymous]

You should pitch your six month plan to US Soccer- I'm sure it will go well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year. Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong

There is a physical component to skills. I get it, you read Gladwell, and while he promotes what you are striving for he intends it more holistically in academics regarding middle school.

The biggest separator at early ages in sports is physical size and early athleticism. At grade school this can be predicted, by middle school it cannot because of the difference that genetics brings to the equation regarding actual physical growth. There are ways to account for that without needing two age groups per calendar year.

A, B and C teams should be for skill and tactical development and bio banding can help those who are physically challenged based on size.

We need to not stigmatize B, C and D team players and we should not crown young A teams players either.

I'm supporting and completely agree with the benefits through elementary school but not middle school. Middle school is different in some areas it is 7th-8th and others it is 6th through 8th. I'd go with a 6th grade cap for two age groups but beyond is just not necessary and there are other more precise solutions available.

Frankly, you're arguing with someone who basically agrees with you and you should probably take a look at the nuanced reasons of where and why we disagree. Considering I have by in to a point a specific point, perhaps it is you who is not really seeing the bigger picture.

[Anonymous]

buy in*

[Anonymous]

This subject is getting a lot of attention. Change is coming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You should pitch your six month plan to US Soccer- I'm sure it will go well

US Soccer has proven themselves to be incompetent a hundred times over. The fact that you don't know this proves you're knew to the game

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Six month age groups

There is not a single negative to a six month age group.

Beyond Elementary school there isn't enough advantage to maintain the complexity.

Its not complex. Its very very simple.

Annnndddd...there absolutely are reasons to do this beyond elementary considering puberty isn't done until the middle part of HS.

Next

When you start combining teams, first to expand for 9v9 and then to 11v11 it is unnecessary. Dual age groups is excellent early on to make sure kids are learning the fundamentals in a more developmentally focused environment. But by middle school, frankly it is silly. Kids need to be placed based more on skill than age. We have gone round and round on this and the numbers just don't support dual age groups. The predictable size variance BASED on birth month can be thrown out the window. Genetics NOT birth month plays a greater role in size variance.

If you honestly think you could walk into a middle school and predict kids birth months with any accuracy based on size I have a bridge to sell you. You might not even be able to predict their birth year accurately in many cases.

You didn't make a reasonable argument. Most of it is nonsense.

By middle school size is more defined by individual genetics than birth month and a predictable linear growth chart through middle school.

What makes dual age groups useful in elementary school are it's obvious benefits but the predictability of implementing it properly. A kid born 10 months later than another kid will be predictably smaller at 7-8 years old.

By middle school that is all out the window because specific growth spurts as well as their intensity simply cannot be predicted in middle school based on birth month. If the intent is to have players of similar size grouped together it would fail miserably based on birth month in middle school. Do you understand this?

It not just about size. The lazy analysis is why the debate continues to happen. This is about human development...physically, mentally and emotionally. A tall well developed 12 years, while may look like a 18 year old, but is still mentally a 12 year. Why? Because physical and mental development do not go hand in hand. This is but one of 5,000 senerios.

I need you to understand this.....You should not filter kids out of a pipeline before they had a chance to develop as a human.

You see it is schools all the time. It is a FLAWED approach. Its proven to be wrong

1. The current approach has been not proven to be wrong. What has been proven is a level of systemic bias in player selection. But the player selections for these teams, which are at the professional level are rarely "wrong" based on you know, becoming professionals. In youth sports, when the metric of winning is used it has not proven to be wrong. A system that is less biased may still result in the same outcome.

2. Even if the current system has been proven "wrong" that doesn't mean your solution is right either. It hasn't been applied anywhere to draw a comparison either.

The inherent problem is bias and prediction long term how a players will develop and grow over time. But, at each stage, yearly selections, year after year, the selections, based on the actual information in front of the coaches is usually right. When there are mistakes, of which there are many, it is due to prejudice, bias, impatience and inexperience and the inequitable distribution of quality resources. B team kids get a B team coach and on down the line. The coaches are assigned these team to learn or based on their own coaching experience. That is the biggest fault in our system. The kids that need more specifically qualified coaches for their stage of development simply are not provided them and they fall further behind.