Bio-banding rule to plays kids down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be awesome if this rule existed for basketball. I have a kid born two days before the cutoff who is small for her age. She loves the sport, but will be late to sprout. There are already girls who are 5'7" at 11 yo and full on into puberty, while my kid is still 4'4" and looks like a 3rd grader. I have no doubt she'll eventually get there, but she may be 14 before she starts puberty.

So what are her options? Playing down on a strong team?

She's not allowed to play down. She's going to end up choosing a different sport. The cutoff date combined with her being late to puberty are too much to overcome.

Stop, there's all kinds of opportunities.

For girls the equivalent of playing down is playing for the 2nd/B team.

This is the difference between Academy and pay to play age bound soccer. There's always a way to play for girls unfortunately parents often won't accept playing on a lower team.

Ironically as girls get older clubs struggle to find players because they've chased off so many with cuts, etc. Which means if you pay your dues on the 2nd team something will open up on the top team.

Um, read my post. It was about basketball, not soccer. There are far fewer options for girls bball in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a Dec boy who was really technically skilled and coaches always told him he was the smartest player on the field. Unfortunately he was small for his age. He had a club soccer coach from Europe who really liked him and played the entire game. He always had the most assists on the team because he could dribble around other players then find these great passing lanes and his timing was great too as a midfielder. However once the coach changed and the physically bigger kids really started having growth spurts when they were 11 and my son was 10 we realized there was no future in soccer for him.

He switched to a different sport and ended up doing well in it. He finally had his growth spurt in high school. He is now 5’10” as a junior and fast but no longer has any real interest in playing soccer on a team. He was playing soccer on the beach last summer with some friends who are on his high school soccer team and they all were amazed and wanted him tj try out for high school soccer but he said no way.

So forget biobanding if you have a smaller boy born in the fall- find a new sport for them. We kept in touch with another small Nov born player from his team and they have been so frustrated with club soccer.

What did he switch to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how soccer is different than any other sport.

Actually size has less of an effect on soccer than it does some other sports.

Size has a massive effect on soccer at the younger ages.
Unless you're smarter than all the research into the subject.

Not really and certainly not more than most other team sports.
Pre-puberty the tiny fast kids usually are the best on the field. As the other kids grow, they lose their advantage and become worse relatively. Then the parents look around for something to "blame" because Larlo used to be the best!

Silly response.
"not really"

If size has no impact at the younger ages, why do the teams with the Early Bloomers, bigger, faster, stronger playing physical kickball winning vast majority of the games?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how soccer is different than any other sport.

Actually size has less of an effect on soccer than it does some other sports.

Size has a massive effect on soccer at the younger ages.
Unless you're smarter than all the research into the subject.

Not really and certainly not more than most other team sports.
Pre-puberty the tiny fast kids usually are the best on the field. As the other kids grow, they lose their advantage and become worse relatively. Then the parents look around for something to "blame" because Larlo used to be the best!

Then based on your flawed narrative.
The MLS Next league is filled with tiny fast kids.
(since size has no effect)

[Anonymous]

Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

[Anonymous]

If these studies were actually persuasive, all sports would do this. Has to be a reason it's just soccer. I guess in the end I should probably just shut up and move on bc I don't have tiny kids who need this to stay competitive with their peers. carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If these studies were actually persuasive, all sports would do this. Has to be a reason it's just soccer. I guess in the end I should probably just shut up and move on bc I don't have tiny kids who need this to stay competitive with their peers. carry on.

Happens in baseball all the time.

They just call it A, AA, and AAA minor league baseball.

Notice how minor league baseball is broken down by ability not age. It doesn't matter how old or young your are skill is the only determiner of the level you play at before MLB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: If these studies were actually persuasive, all sports would do this. Has to be a reason it's just soccer. I guess in the end I should probably just shut up and move on bc I don't have tiny kids who need this to stay competitive with their peers. carry on.

Yes anti-intellectual, it's best you shut up move on.
Since you refuse to read articles and studies on the subject, but choose to comment and disagree.

It's impossible to only be soccer, unless kids in other sports are robots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If these studies were actually persuasive, all sports would do this. Has to be a reason it's just soccer. I guess in the end I should probably just shut up and move on bc I don't have tiny kids who need this to stay competitive with their peers. carry on.

Yes anti-intellectual, it's best you shut up move on.
Since you refuse to read articles and studies on the subject, but choose to comment and disagree.

It's impossible to only be soccer, unless kids in other sports are robots.

You're just awesome, amazing keyboard warrior. Go you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

What you're not understanding is that in the Academy world there is no "b" team. Either you play on the top team or you don't play. This is why they allow a couple of players to play down. It challenges the younger players and gives a player with talent and size potential an opportunity to play.

Also it makes it more difficult for parents to say my kids team is better than yours. This is because other Academy teams could always stack their team with ringers playing down. It forces parents, and players to look at development as the overall goal not wins per say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

If you chose to read any of the many published research, you would understand the multiple facets.
When a kid is placed on a lower team because of size, it usually means they are condemned to lesser coaching and training while the 'A' team kids continue to receive the best of everything the club has to offer.
This has a cumulative effect.

It is not as Neanderthal as "tiny" kids.
The research data shows majority of academy kids are born in the first half of the year. The least represented academy age group is from the 4th quarter of the year.
These are indisputable facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

Kevin De Bruyne is a classic case of why Bio-banding works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admittedly haven't looked into this issue specifically for soccer, so yes, yes, I am totally uninformed about this issue, but I am struggling, from a practical standpoint, to understand why soccer, and specifically the professional pathway, is special and requires biobanding, where other sports that are based on DOB rather than grade do not bioband. I get that this seems to be something that is done in Europe for their soccer Academies, but what is the point in cases where the late developer is just small due to genetics and is never going to be as big as their peers? Like, you can look at some parents and tell that their kid is never going to be big/tall. Isn't the average height of pro soccer players still somewhere close to 5'11"? Just trying to understand the point (without reading up on it, lol).

sigh...
But reading one study on Relative Age Effect (which impacts all youth sports, proven and documented) will answer all your questions.

Many top level players in soccer, basketball, baseball, ice hockey were late developers.
They only made it to the top professionally because their parents and they didn't quit when bigger kids were always getting chosen for the 'A' team.

btw... the look at the parents method has proven flawed in many instances.

But the not quitting bc you don't make A team is NOT the same playing down because you're tiny. To me, sticking with it is playing on your age group on "B" team until you "grow" strong enough to compete with the "bigger kids." It's no different than being developmentally the average size for your age, but developing soccer skills at a different speed than others your age. Kids who aren't as strong from a technical standpoint at, say, age 11, but who bust their asses and put in the work so that they are better don't get to play down while they work on their technical skills. But if you just are small for your age, you do. I just don't get it. But, I guess I don't really have to!

If you chose to read any of the many published research, you would understand the multiple facets.
When a kid is placed on a lower team because of size, it usually means they are condemned to lesser coaching and training while the 'A' team kids continue to receive the best of everything the club has to offer.
This has a cumulative effect.

It is not as Neanderthal as "tiny" kids.
The research data shows majority of academy kids are born in the first half of the year. The least represented academy age group is from the 4th quarter of the year.
These are indisputable facts.

My kid is on a top team and she was born in September.

And that is an indisputable fact.