can someone explain biobanding like I am a third grader?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just glad ECNL does not have this kind of biobanding shit. My kid wants to play HS soccer, so MLS is never our option. And even in HS soccer, seniors will not play down in the JV team, and juniors or sophomores will not play down in the freshman team. If they can not make the team for their grade, they will not "bioband" to play in the school team for a younger grade.

Can you take some of these MLS Next parents with you over to ECNL? MLS Next was not created to develop the "next" JV and Varsity high school talents. It was created to develop the next professional players. Whether they are successful is a different question but you are exactly in the right place and it seems like you should bring some people with you.

I am curious for the rest. When a kid shows up to practice or in a game, do parents ask for birth certifications or a bio-banding confirmation? How do you know who is bio-banding because I have never once questioned a kids age? My kids plays against kids that look like they can literally eat him but that is just the nature of development.

When my son first got roughed up by bigger and stronger kids, I did not ask for birth certificates or bio-banding documentation. We went to the Veo. I showed him how much space was available if used his advantages which are soccer IQ, scanning and a great first touch. It took a couple of months but he got it and plays with anticipation. He learned how to create leverage and shield a player once he beats him. He won't be winning any headers for a while still.

Some of you should take this conversation to the Extra Comfortable National League where parent experience and successful events are touted by the CEO. They will make sure you are well taken care of, everything is fair and you have an extra comfortable experience for parent and child.

Can you at least admit that your rationale for being ok with clubs cheating with the bio-banding rule is exactly opposite the rationale for having the rule?

I am not okay with them abusing the rule any more that I challenged my own coach for putting us in a tournament that he knew we could win and did not challenge the boys. There are some things I can control and some things I can't. I think the parents control the bio-banding more than the clubs. The clubs cater to the parents.

Read Cody Gakpo's post in the Player's Tribune. He references overcoming preferential treatment from the club to kids whose parents showered coaches with lavish gifts. The Netherlands are 6-7 hours away and Gakpo had to deal with the same BS we have to deal with. You can either complain about the system and the inherent inequities that will always be there as long as the robots don't overtake humans or you accept it and develop your kid in spite of the inequities. Personally, I don't complain. I responded to the marketplace whether it is youth soccer, business, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

correct. and this has nothing to do with bio-banding. why are you even discussing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

correct. and this has nothing to do with bio-banding. why are you even discussing it?

Playing up and taking a spot, fine
Playing down within biobanding guidelines and taking a spot, not fine

Hypocrisy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just glad ECNL does not have this kind of biobanding shit. My kid wants to play HS soccer, so MLS is never our option. And even in HS soccer, seniors will not play down in the JV team, and juniors or sophomores will not play down in the freshman team. If they can not make the team for their grade, they will not "bioband" to play in the school team for a younger grade.

Can you take some of these MLS Next parents with you over to ECNL? MLS Next was not created to develop the "next" JV and Varsity high school talents. It was created to develop the next professional players. Whether they are successful is a different question but you are exactly in the right place and it seems like you should bring some people with you.

I am curious for the rest. When a kid shows up to practice or in a game, do parents ask for birth certifications or a bio-banding confirmation? How do you know who is bio-banding because I have never once questioned a kids age? My kids plays against kids that look like they can literally eat him but that is just the nature of development.

When my son first got roughed up by bigger and stronger kids, I did not ask for birth certificates or bio-banding documentation. We went to the Veo. I showed him how much space was available if used his advantages which are soccer IQ, scanning and a great first touch. It took a couple of months but he got it and plays with anticipation. He learned how to create leverage and shield a player once he beats him. He won't be winning any headers for a while still.

Some of you should take this conversation to the Extra Comfortable National League where parent experience and successful events are touted by the CEO. They will make sure you are well taken care of, everything is fair and you have an extra comfortable experience for parent and child.

If MLSN is so pro path focused then why does bother with MLSN non academy P2P, aka MLSN2? And why did they start MLSN3 and MLSN4 last year?

They created MLS Next 1 and 2 to profit on a marketplace which they successfully did. They are a business and business is GOOOOOOD!

Yup, profit based not pro based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

correct. and this has nothing to do with bio-banding. why are you even discussing it?

Playing up and taking a spot, fine
Playing down within biobanding guidelines and taking a spot, not fine

Hypocrisy?

No. Why is this hard for you? The reasons why it's not are above. Playing up is not the same as playing down. Seems pretty obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

Sports are competitive activities. We always want to be better and be honored as better athletes. Playing down because you are short is a disgrace. Most players would rather play the 2nd team than play down. I would say one year of playing down because of growth is OK, but 2/3 years or you are already 17/18 and you are still in the younger team is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

correct. and this has nothing to do with bio-banding. why are you even discussing it?

Playing up and taking a spot, fine
Playing down within biobanding guidelines and taking a spot, not fine

Hypocrisy?

and again. I'm not complaining about bio-banding used properly. if there's a true late developer playing down, then great. it's a good rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just glad ECNL does not have this kind of biobanding shit. My kid wants to play HS soccer, so MLS is never our option. And even in HS soccer, seniors will not play down in the JV team, and juniors or sophomores will not play down in the freshman team. If they can not make the team for their grade, they will not "bioband" to play in the school team for a younger grade.

Can you take some of these MLS Next parents with you over to ECNL? MLS Next was not created to develop the "next" JV and Varsity high school talents. It was created to develop the next professional players. Whether they are successful is a different question but you are exactly in the right place and it seems like you should bring some people with you.

I am curious for the rest. When a kid shows up to practice or in a game, do parents ask for birth certifications or a bio-banding confirmation? How do you know who is bio-banding because I have never once questioned a kids age? My kids plays against kids that look like they can literally eat him but that is just the nature of development.

When my son first got roughed up by bigger and stronger kids, I did not ask for birth certificates or bio-banding documentation. We went to the Veo. I showed him how much space was available if used his advantages which are soccer IQ, scanning and a great first touch. It took a couple of months but he got it and plays with anticipation. He learned how to create leverage and shield a player once he beats him. He won't be winning any headers for a while still.

Some of you should take this conversation to the Extra Comfortable National League where parent experience and successful events are touted by the CEO. They will make sure you are well taken care of, everything is fair and you have an extra comfortable experience for parent and child.

Can you at least admit that your rationale for being ok with clubs cheating with the bio-banding rule is exactly opposite the rationale for having the rule?

I am not okay with them abusing the rule any more that I challenged my own coach for putting us in a tournament that he knew we could win and did not challenge the boys. There are some things I can control and some things I can't. I think the parents control the bio-banding more than the clubs. The clubs cater to the parents.

Read Cody Gakpo's post in the Player's Tribune. He references overcoming preferential treatment from the club to kids whose parents showered coaches with lavish gifts. The Netherlands are 6-7 hours away and Gakpo had to deal with the same BS we have to deal with. You can either complain about the system and the inherent inequities that will always be there as long as the robots don't overtake humans or you accept it and develop your kid in spite of the inequities. Personally, I don't complain. I responded to the marketplace whether it is youth soccer, business, etc.

So rather than complain about the abuse of a rule designed to encourage development, you'd rather complain about people complaining?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

Pretty sure the op was asking about an obviously not undersized kid playing down. I think everyone who is reasonable finds no issue with the concept of
Biobandinf. Just the use by clubs to play down kids that don’t need the help due to late development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am just glad ECNL does not have this kind of biobanding shit. My kid wants to play HS soccer, so MLS is never our option. And even in HS soccer, seniors will not play down in the JV team, and juniors or sophomores will not play down in the freshman team. If they can not make the team for their grade, they will not "bioband" to play in the school team for a younger grade.

Can you take some of these MLS Next parents with you over to ECNL? MLS Next was not created to develop the "next" JV and Varsity high school talents. It was created to develop the next professional players. Whether they are successful is a different question but you are exactly in the right place and it seems like you should bring some people with you.

I am curious for the rest. When a kid shows up to practice or in a game, do parents ask for birth certifications or a bio-banding confirmation? How do you know who is bio-banding because I have never once questioned a kids age? My kids plays against kids that look like they can literally eat him but that is just the nature of development.

When my son first got roughed up by bigger and stronger kids, I did not ask for birth certificates or bio-banding documentation. We went to the Veo. I showed him how much space was available if used his advantages which are soccer IQ, scanning and a great first touch. It took a couple of months but he got it and plays with anticipation. He learned how to create leverage and shield a player once he beats him. He won't be winning any headers for a while still.

Some of you should take this conversation to the Extra Comfortable National League where parent experience and successful events are touted by the CEO. They will make sure you are well taken care of, everything is fair and you have an extra comfortable experience for parent and child.

Can you at least admit that your rationale for being ok with clubs cheating with the bio-banding rule is exactly opposite the rationale for having the rule?

I am not okay with them abusing the rule any more that I challenged my own coach for putting us in a tournament that he knew we could win and did not challenge the boys. There are some things I can control and some things I can't. I think the parents control the bio-banding more than the clubs. The clubs cater to the parents.

Read Cody Gakpo's post in the Player's Tribune. He references overcoming preferential treatment from the club to kids whose parents showered coaches with lavish gifts. The Netherlands are 6-7 hours away and Gakpo had to deal with the same BS we have to deal with. You can either complain about the system and the inherent inequities that will always be there as long as the robots don't overtake humans or you accept it and develop your kid in spite of the inequities. Personally, I don't complain. I responded to the marketplace whether it is youth soccer, business, etc.

So rather than complain about the abuse of a rule designed to encourage development, you'd rather complain about people complaining?

You're 100% right. THANK YOU for the wake up call! My energy is best used towards a segment of the marketplace that actually has the capacity to be great. Lesson learned. I will exit the chat. You are free to continue complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

When early bloomers physical developers play up, don't take time from someone?

right, just like every time any player is chosen to get minutes over another player. you selected one aspect of this.

You're ignoring abusing a rule to cheat (playing up is within the rules) and taking time from a player that is good enough to get minutes in their age group for a player that is not good enough to get minutes in their age group.

If a younger player plays up and takes time from an older player, based on your own statement, then the older player just isn't good enough, no?

Sports are competitive activities. We always want to be better and be honored as better athletes. Playing down because you are short is a disgrace. Most players would rather play the 2nd team than play down. I would say one year of playing down because of growth is OK, but 2/3 years or you are already 17/18 and you are still in the younger team is ridiculous.

The subject and discussion is about the development of young kids

Not competition between Roman gladiators

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what DMV MLSNext teams are biobanding?

Every MLSNext teams have bio banded kids in almost all age groups.

there is a 5'6" 13 yo playing down on my son's team and not sure how 5'6" at 13 is an undersized late bloomer but ok I guess. whatever it takes to win. yes I am bitter and no he wasn't 4'10 at beginning of season and had some kind og miraculous 8 inch spurt causing him to have sized out of biobanding. its a jok

I mean if a biobanded kid threatens your kid’s place on the team, then perhaps consider whether your kid is good enough for an MLSNext team?

Maybe it’s team specific. But even the regular starters on my DS MLSNext team don’t ever think their starting slot or time is secure. And that anyone (current teammate, second team player, outsider, etc.) can be better or can get better. They’ve seen it happen a few times on their team and other teams so no one considers biobanded kids any different from any other player threat.

What club is this? This is a great mentality for development.

It's easy to tell who is a biobanded if you actually have a kid in MLS Next. Just look at the game rosters on Taka. Biobands automatically have both their actual age group and the younger age group they were approved by MLS to play with in their profile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain why we're fine with bigger early developers playing up but losing our minds about smaller late developers playing down?

"We're" not. I think everyone is in agreement that it's a good idea to have late developers play down a year to put them in the best environment to develop. What I have a problem with is the rule being abused by clubs to play larger players, not quite good enough to get minutes for their on-age first team, down to get wins. Unless you're the tough guy above, it's a bad idea that hinders the development of the kids playing down and the kids who lose time because of it.

My son plays on a 2012 MLS Next HG team that uses two 2011 biobands. The two 2011s start but they are close to, if not the smallest two starters on the 2012 team. Where are you seeing clubs playing "larger players" as late developers? Give some actual, verifiable examples. Anyone whose kid actually plays MLS Next should have access to Taka and can watch games there. In the MLS Next Mid-Atlantic league our team has not encountered other teams' biobands being large or further along in puberty compared to the kids on the field they are playing (a year down). Like the ones on our team, most are even on the small side compared with the kids a year younger. And they are very small compared to their own age group. Are the biobands really good and helpful to their younger teams, sure, but no teams are bringing down true ringers, bc they wouldn't want to lose them in the older age group. Also, if MLS were to adopt school year, I'd guess that many of the biobands would be in that younger age group anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what DMV MLSNext teams are biobanding?

Every MLSNext teams have bio banded kids in almost all age groups.

there is a 5'6" 13 yo playing down on my son's team and not sure how 5'6" at 13 is an undersized late bloomer but ok I guess. whatever it takes to win. yes I am bitter and no he wasn't 4'10 at beginning of season and had some kind og miraculous 8 inch spurt causing him to have sized out of biobanding. its a jok

Which team? So the 13 year old is a 2012 playing 2013 and is 5'6". This is not likely to have been approved by the MLS.