Bio-banding rule to plays kids down

[Anonymous]

Bio-banding isn't about kids not good enough to play at their chronological age playing down with younger kids.

It's about kids playing with their biological age.

A January 2nd 2014 kid is almost a year older biologically than a December 28th 2014 kid.
But they are the same age (birth year) chronologically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A PP mentioned that playing down an age group (biobanding) is not the same as playing on age (or even up) but on the B team. At least with two clubs in the DMV area, this is very true. That is, a 2013 top team has arguably more skilled players than the same club’s 2012 B team.

The intensity and the skills and the speed of play is just higher on the top teams than the B teams. This is why parents would rather move to a different club than have their kid move down on the B team

I know this is just anecdotal but DS has played with two clubs in the area and the difference between the A and B team is vast. At one club that he practiced with, the A and B scrimmaged and it was very uncompetitive with no B team player standing out all. For another club, the age group practiced at the same time but separately but the difference in intensity, speed of play and discipline was pretty obvious.

Of the small, late age players we knew from those top teams that could/would be cut, if I were their parent, I’d just move to them to a completely different club bc I knew they were just much better than anyone on the B team (despite their size).

We’ve had at least two coaches tell us that they would rather pull a kid up from the younger age group than promote a kid from the B team.

How about if the A team (of the new club) is not as good as the B team (of the current club), would you still move to the A team?

Depends on the coaching. If they don’t win as much bc they are always trying to play possession and/or focus on individual development, then yes. But if play kickball or focus on physicality and are still loosing, no.

Assuming ur in the DMV area, there really are a lot of options. And frankly, it’s more abt the individual player than the team they’re coming from.

We know of a kid who played on an EDP IV team and also up on an EDP III Team who tried out and got on an MLSNext team. Bc regardless of the team they were on, they were clearly a very good player bc of technical skills and physicality.

DS has played Bethesda’s top and b teams over the last few years. Technically, I thought the players were on par and both played possession based soccer. But the top team hustled more and the speed of passing was faster. Also they stayed mentally strong the entire game, never let bad calls or shenanigans distract them. The B team and their coach and parents were so obnoxious about every call they perceived went against the team. To me it was a huge difference in focus, discipline, and determination.

And perhaps that’s why it’s so impt to be on the top team. A kid on that team is truly more confident and determined to stay there too.

FWIW, I have a kid on a top team and even if he is a starter and plays all the time, he wont let himself get too comfortable and assumes he has to fight for that spot every week. I’m sure his teammates feel the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding isn't about kids not good enough to play at their chronological age playing down with younger kids.

It's about kids playing with their biological age.

A January 2nd 2014 kid is almost a year older biologically than a December 28th 2014 kid.
But they are the same age (birth year) chronologically.

1 year difference between U11-U17 is HUGE.

[Anonymous]

Our son is one of the few kids bio-banding in the DMV area. Over the last three years, he has played up a year (on a relatively weak ECNL team), on age, and down a year in MLS Next. Each year it was what was the best decision for his development and not about the prestige of the league, standings, etc. He is a late spring / early summer birthday but biologically at least two years behind his peers in size and puberty. From that standpoint, even when he's playing down a year, he's still the smallest kid on the field and, in essence, still playing up. When the system is applied correctly, it is an opportunity given to kids who have potential but lack the size for a fair fight - particularly in the years immediately following transition to full field. One thing that almost all involved with high level youth soccer will agree upon is the tendency to select larger athletic kids who can help a team win now. The US looks at raw athleticism while many other countries look for foot skills and soccer IQ. Not going to say which one is right, but I see fairly small rosters in Argentina, Brazil, and Italy with multiple World Cups and us with none. The US infatuation with size squeezes out the late developers who have the same and often greater up side than the early bloomers. Bio-banding is not without its flaws because there is so little structure, and the US has a rather antiquated club culture of cutting players off by 12/31 vs 1/1 birthdates. However, when applied correctly, it is a great course correction for what is a huge problem of fielding the biggest players coaches can find.

[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.

If you want to know if your DS coach picked the most developed players just look at their birthdays. How many of your kids teammates are quarter 1 birthdays? However; the science doesn’t back up that quarter 2 players are the next best. Quarter 3 are, they are oldest grade wise and tend to be more mature. This also only really affects u13-u15. After puberty it all pretty much works itself out except for the players who quit in that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to know if your DS coach picked the most developed players just look at their birthdays. How many of your kids teammates are quarter 1 birthdays? However; the science doesn’t back up that quarter 2 players are the next best. Quarter 3 are, they are oldest grade wise and tend to be more mature. This also only really affects u13-u15. After puberty it all pretty much works itself out except for the players who quit in that time.

Can you provide a link to a research study that shows most academy and top club team rosters have majority 3rd quarter birth months?
Also that the impact is concentrated U13 to U15

Because all studies and data I've seen pulled from real academy rosters show 1st half of year bias and and issue that extends to U17/18

[Anonymous]

i wish bio-banding was an option since my child would be the poster child for someone who would benefit from it. I wish they would start with some sort of waiver based on documented medical issues. My child would benefit from this, not so much from the future KdB quality player perspective but from the 'he loves soccer and he would enjoy the sport more if he could play with people similar to him in terms of mental maturity and physical size'. My son is a December birthday and has medical reasons for delayed maturity and small physical stature. He's a starter on a low level team, not because he's more skilled, but because he tries harder than the other kids and the coaches respect that. He gets teased by the other kids because of his lack of maturity and they take out their frustrations on him physically.

He's not going to be a ringer for a younger team, so no one is going to care if he plays down, but the likelihood of him getting injured would go way down if he could play down a year and he's much closer in mental maturity to kids younger than him than kids older than him. So while I don't care about what level team he plays on, I do care about him not getting injured and about him being able to get along with his teammates. He might not need to play down forever, but he's young, hasn't hit maturity and would benefit from bio-banding even if it all it does is allow him to play 1 more year of soccer. If bio-banding was just tied to medical issues for lower-level leagues like NCSL, I think that would be a great start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our son is one of the few kids bio-banding in the DMV area. Over the last three years, he has played up a year (on a relatively weak ECNL team), on age, and down a year in MLS Next. Each year it was what was the best decision for his development and not about the prestige of the league, standings, etc. He is a late spring / early summer birthday but biologically at least two years behind his peers in size and puberty. From that standpoint, even when he's playing down a year, he's still the smallest kid on the field and, in essence, still playing up. When the system is applied correctly, it is an opportunity given to kids who have potential but lack the size for a fair fight - particularly in the years immediately following transition to full field. One thing that almost all involved with high level youth soccer will agree upon is the tendency to select larger athletic kids who can help a team win now. The US looks at raw athleticism while many other countries look for foot skills and soccer IQ. Not going to say which one is right, but I see fairly small rosters in Argentina, Brazil, and Italy with multiple World Cups and us with none. The US infatuation with size squeezes out the late developers who have the same and often greater up side than the early bloomers. Bio-banding is not without its flaws because there is so little structure, and the US has a rather antiquated club culture of cutting players off by 12/31 vs 1/1 birthdates. However, when applied correctly, it is a great course correction for what is a huge problem of fielding the biggest players coaches can find.

It's great to hear from someone whose child has had a positive experience with bio-banding. I have a kid whose soccer trajectory (and overall confidence) would have probably been different if he had the opportunity to play down with other skilled players who were closer to his biological age. With so much discussion about the lack of creativity in American players, there should be more focus on making sure that skilled players with high soccer IQs who might be late developers have opportunities to play on high-level teams. This also benefits early developers on the younger teams because it helps them understand the use of space, making runs, and problem solving that will help their development. I know from personal experience that putting a skilled and creative late developer on a B team doesn't work well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to know if your DS coach picked the most developed players just look at their birthdays. How many of your kids teammates are quarter 1 birthdays? However; the science doesn’t back up that quarter 2 players are the next best. Quarter 3 are, they are oldest grade wise and tend to be more mature. This also only really affects u13-u15. After puberty it all pretty much works itself out except for the players who quit in that time.

Can you provide a link to a research study that shows most academy and top club team rosters have majority 3rd quarter birth months?
Also that the impact is concentrated U13 to U15

Because all studies and data I've seen pulled from real academy rosters show 1st half of year bias and and issue that extends to U17/18

That wasn’t what was said. Most academies have Quarter 1 birthdays. Oldest and most mature. The next group of players though are now being seen to be Quarter 3 birthdays. United Soccer coaches posted the article in their magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you want to know if your DS coach picked the most developed players just look at their birthdays. How many of your kids teammates are quarter 1 birthdays? However; the science doesn’t back up that quarter 2 players are the next best. Quarter 3 are, they are oldest grade wise and tend to be more mature. This also only really affects u13-u15. After puberty it all pretty much works itself out except for the players who quit in that time.

Can you provide a link to a research study that shows most academy and top club team rosters have majority 3rd quarter birth months?
Also that the impact is concentrated U13 to U15

Because all studies and data I've seen pulled from real academy rosters show 1st half of year bias and and issue that extends to U17/18

That wasn’t what was said. Most academies have Quarter 1 birthdays. Oldest and most mature. The next group of players though are now being seen to be Quarter 3 birthdays. United Soccer coaches posted the article in their magazine.

So kids born July/Aug/Sep are now more biologically and mentally mature than kids born April/May/June?

Is it the sugar in cereals?

[Anonymous]

I don't understand "Biologic age". Unless a kid has a growth hormone deficiency, their biologic age = their actual age. There is a huge range of NORMAL development.

[Anonymous]

Bio-banding has nothing to do with birthdates. In fact, the concept of bio-banding underscores how ridiculous the birth year groupings can be. Just as you can plant three trees at the same time and expect them all to grow at different rates, so is the case for children. The problem is that our parents and coaches are not rational enough to be trusted with grouping in a fair way without standards such as birth years. So, that has become the norm. What has resulted is a greed...trying to find the early bloomers so you can hoist trophies, post them on Instagram, and wake up six years from now (hopefully) realizing how useless that was. In Europe it is common to have kids two or three years apart playing together. When they are ready to be moved up to the next age group, it happens - and most parents shut up about it. It's a shame that cannot happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding has nothing to do with birthdates. In fact, the concept of bio-banding underscores how ridiculous the birth year groupings can be. Just as you can plant three trees at the same time and expect them all to grow at different rates, so is the case for children. The problem is that our parents and coaches are not rational enough to be trusted with grouping in a fair way without standards such as birth years. So, that has become the norm. What has resulted is a greed...trying to find the early bloomers so you can hoist trophies, post them on Instagram, and wake up six years from now (hopefully) realizing how useless that was. In Europe it is common to have kids two or three years apart playing together. When they are ready to be moved up to the next age group, it happens - and most parents shut up about it. It's a shame that cannot happen here.

So there isn't any grouping by age in Europe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand "Biologic age". Unless a kid has a growth hormone deficiency, their biologic age = their actual age. There is a huge range of NORMAL development.

I guess it starts with understanding biology.

Biological Age means physical development milestone versus Chronological Age which is based on a date.

Two kids born in 2004 are the same Chronologically if you're grouping by year born.
If one is born January 1st and one December 30th, their Biological Ages are a year apart.
Understand now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bio-banding has nothing to do with birthdates. In fact, the concept of bio-banding underscores how ridiculous the birth year groupings can be. Just as you can plant three trees at the same time and expect them all to grow at different rates, so is the case for children. The problem is that our parents and coaches are not rational enough to be trusted with grouping in a fair way without standards such as birth years. So, that has become the norm. What has resulted is a greed...trying to find the early bloomers so you can hoist trophies, post them on Instagram, and wake up six years from now (hopefully) realizing how useless that was. In Europe it is common to have kids two or three years apart playing together. When they are ready to be moved up to the next age group, it happens - and most parents shut up about it. It's a shame that cannot happen here.

Not sure you grasp the Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding concept.
Also, you don't seem to have facts straight on the European system.