Anonymous wrote:In Europe and in some other football countries, clubs can get compensated for pushing up a 16 17 18-year-old to a pro team and signing a contract. It's prestigious for the club and it goes on their brag board. If they sell the player on, they get compensated for it.

Here no such thing exists so there's no incentive except maybe how many players went off to college to play. But another country is what you do is you try to push as many of the top 12, 13, 14 year olds up to u16 to accelerate them. again that economic instead of does not exist here so we don't do it nearly as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this board [and dmv soccer] is that parents who ask this question in our club are doing so for their Ulittle.

Does that make the topic less relevant?

It does for the very reason people don't need to be posting their U8-U9 year old on the guest playing Facebook group with a confirmed position as the only one they play. Let your kid play for fun, even at the highest levels, with their 3rd grader classmates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this board [and dmv soccer] is that parents who ask this question in our club are doing so for their Ulittle.

Does that make the topic less relevant?

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this board [and dmv soccer] is that parents who ask this question in our club are doing so for their Ulittle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing up is standard practice in Academy soccer because the end product is the best player possible at the youngest age possible.

With pay to play the goal is to maximize profits for the club. To do this you want as many players playing for as long as possible.

Take a step back and think about it. If there was a 14 year old boy that could score at will against 18+ year old opponents. What would happen? They’d get identified, recruited to a MLSN team, and if they continued to do well would eventually play on a professional MLS team. Now take the exact same situation but the player was female. They’d get recruited to the top girls club in the area, they might play up but it’s not common, and they’d get prepared by the club to get recruited to play for a too college soccer team.

The question is why are talented girls treated differently than talented boys?

So unfortunately, our culture puts youth club first (on average)

Development of players is somewhere down the pecking order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our large club (that generally has high performing teams), the best players played up at uLittle, but are all playing on-age group now.

There are still players playing up, but the club uses that to bolster weaker years, and they are not playing up the strongest players. So the best 2009 players still start for the 2009s, but if the 2008s need help at center back, the 4th best 2009 CB is playing up with the 2008s.

Seems to make sense and be a good outcome for good players that were born in strong birth years for the club.

Doesn't make sense to have a weak 2009 playing up with even weaker 2008's (since the development of the 09 should be the priority)

To me it’s about playing time and competition. Both teams compete in ECRL. The 4th 2009 CB (that is better than all 2008 CBs save one) could either be a sub on 2009 ECRL, a starter on the 2009 team below that, or a starter on 2008 ECRL. Seems like a no-brainer.

Yes the 2008 team is not as good as the 2009, but she’s still playing against the same level of competition, and I don’t think the drop off in teammates has a huge impact during training.

Anonymous wrote:Playing up is standard practice in Academy soccer because the end product is the best player possible at the youngest age possible.

With pay to play the goal is to maximize profits for the club. To do this you want as many players playing for as long as possible.

Take a step back and think about it. If there was a 14 year old boy that could score at will against 18+ year old opponents. What would happen? They’d get identified, recruited to a MLSN team, and if they continued to do well would eventually play on a professional MLS team. Now take the exact same situation but the player was female. They’d get recruited to the top girls club in the area, they might play up but it’s not common, and they’d get prepared by the club to get recruited to play for a too college soccer team.

The question is why are talented girls treated differently than talented boys?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our large club (that generally has high performing teams), the best players played up at uLittle, but are all playing on-age group now.

There are still players playing up, but the club uses that to bolster weaker years, and they are not playing up the strongest players. So the best 2009 players still start for the 2009s, but if the 2008s need help at center back, the 4th best 2009 CB is playing up with the 2008s.

Seems to make sense and be a good outcome for good players that were born in strong birth years for the club.

Doesn't make sense to have a weak 2009 playing up with even weaker 2008's (since the development of the 09 should be the priority)

To me it’s about playing time and competition. Both teams compete in ECRL. The 4th 2009 CB (that is better than all 2008 CBs save one) could either be a sub on 2009 ECRL, a starter on the 2009 team below that, or a starter on 2008 ECRL. Seems like a no-brainer.

Yes the 2008 team is not as good as the 2009, but she’s still playing against the same level of competition, and I don’t think the drop off in teammates has a huge impact during training.

It's not so much as who you play with as who you play against. If the 2008s are a weaker division, then they won't be as technical and won't play as fast. The entire purpose of playing up is to have better competition. If you don't have that, then what is the point?

Anonymous wrote:

DaniRojas wrote:Go ask the TDs and Age Group Directors.

Is there a local TD's and Age Group Directors blog?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our large club (that generally has high performing teams), the best players played up at uLittle, but are all playing on-age group now.

There are still players playing up, but the club uses that to bolster weaker years, and they are not playing up the strongest players. So the best 2009 players still start for the 2009s, but if the 2008s need help at center back, the 4th best 2009 CB is playing up with the 2008s.

Seems to make sense and be a good outcome for good players that were born in strong birth years for the club.

Doesn't make sense to have a weak 2009 playing up with even weaker 2008's (since the development of the 09 should be the priority)

To me it’s about playing time and competition. Both teams compete in ECRL. The 4th 2009 CB (that is better than all 2008 CBs save one) could either be a sub on 2009 ECRL, a starter on the 2009 team below that, or a starter on 2008 ECRL. Seems like a no-brainer.

Yes the 2008 team is not as good as the 2009, but she’s still playing against the same level of competition, and I don’t think the drop off in teammates has a huge impact during training.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our large club (that generally has high performing teams), the best players played up at uLittle, but are all playing on-age group now.

There are still players playing up, but the club uses that to bolster weaker years, and they are not playing up the strongest players. So the best 2009 players still start for the 2009s, but if the 2008s need help at center back, the 4th best 2009 CB is playing up with the 2008s.

Seems to make sense and be a good outcome for good players that were born in strong birth years for the club.

Doesn't make sense to have a weak 2009 playing up with even weaker 2008's (since the development of the 09 should be the priority)