Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

It's Academy training philosophy vs pay to play or club training.

With Academy training the end goal is for players to play professionally and to get there in the shortest amount of time.

With pay to play the goal is to age bound players/teams so parents pay for club services as long as possible.

This is why in MLSN playing up is common.

This is confusing

If in MLS Next playing up 1 or 2 years is "normal" and common, how are we also having ongoing discussions about several area MLS Next teams doing bio-banding (kids playing down)

It's because MLSN as a league exists to identify talent that can play professionally.

Say you have a really good u14 who's 5'1" but both his parents are 6'0" don't you think it would make sense to kid the kid around? The potential for him to be 6'0" is very high.

Other reasons for playing down...
- Easier for clubs to field teams
- Forces of age players to play up but in a limited fashion
- Keeps parents from focusing on wins (because clubs could easily skew the results with who they play down)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

Why not just be assumed a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
There's no normal

There is a big difference between a U16 playing U18 when the U16 is past puberty versus a U13 pre-puberty playing U15 already going through puberty.

You don't get it.

MLSN Academy players are recruited from all the different local teams.

Even if they're smaller the players are going to be good and used to playing up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

No, there are a handful that do. We have some on our team but they deserve to be there as it’s the level they’re at.

It doesn’t sit well with me that parents care so much about biobanding. I hope whatever complaints they have about it, they’re doing it out of earshot of their DS.

Because if it bothers a parent that another kid is biobanding and that some how, that puts their kid or their team at a disadvantage, then you are not providing the right environment for your DS to reach whatever their goal is, whether college or pro.

If anything, we should be supportive of whatever can make teammates a stronger player as that elevates the team and practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

It's Academy training philosophy vs pay to play or club training.

With Academy training the end goal is for players to play professionally and to get there in the shortest amount of time.

With pay to play the goal is to age bound players/teams so parents pay for club services as long as possible.

This is why in MLSN playing up is common.

This is confusing

If in MLS Next playing up 1 or 2 years is "normal" and common, how are we also having ongoing discussions about several area MLS Next teams doing bio-banding (kids playing down)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

It's Academy training philosophy vs pay to play or club training.

With Academy training the end goal is for players to play professionally and to get there in the shortest amount of time.

With pay to play the goal is to age bound players/teams so parents pay for club services as long as possible.

This is why in MLSN playing up is common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Eventually, they will have to play against their own age groups if they want to play in college. No coach is going to recruit a senior playing U16. If they want to delay it a year, I think the only ones hurt by it are the kids playing down who have to deal with teammates mocking them. Either way, I think this is better for kids than the redshirting that goes on in other sports. At least with bio banding, the kid graduates high school on time

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

NP
I'm new to this.
Does every kid in MLS Next play 1 and 2 years up?

Wow, that is so different than say ECNL, or is that the case there too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

Why not just be assumed a fool than open your mouth and prove it.
There's no normal

There is a big difference between a U16 playing U18 when the U16 is past puberty versus a U13 pre-puberty playing U15 already going through puberty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Two years, so what?

You're talking about the best of the best talent. Playing up 1 or 2 years is normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

That's not logically sound. A kid needs to be small for the age band, which covers January-December, not small for their age.

A January birthday kid who is 10th percentile relative to their age will be larger (and less disadvantaged) than a December birthday who is 10th percentile relative to their age.

You can't argue with someone who thinks there's no significance in 11 months difference at 12, 13, 14 years old.

What? The point is it's different for different kids because of puberty, instead of when they were born.

You need to read instead of focusing on responding.

The PP said a 2014 January kid 8 months delayed is still 2014 in physicality
Meanwhile, a 2014 November/December kid 8 months delayed is a 2015 in physicality

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

That's not logically sound. A kid needs to be small for the age band, which covers January-December, not small for their age.

A January birthday kid who is 10th percentile relative to their age will be larger (and less disadvantaged) than a December birthday who is 10th percentile relative to their age.

You can't argue with someone who thinks there's no significance in 11 months difference at 12, 13, 14 years old.

What? The point is it's different for different kids because of puberty, instead of when they were born.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

That's not logically sound. A kid needs to be small for the age band, which covers January-December, not small for their age.

A January birthday kid who is 10th percentile relative to their age will be larger (and less disadvantaged) than a December birthday who is 10th percentile relative to their age.

You can't argue with someone who thinks there's no significance in 11 months difference at 12, 13, 14 years old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?

There are kids in MLS Next playing up an age group who are going against bio-banded kids. It's now a two year difference

Several of the bio-banded kids are not physically underdeveloped

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

That's not logically sound. A kid needs to be small for the age band, which covers January-December, not small for their age.

A January birthday kid who is 10th percentile relative to their age will be larger (and less disadvantaged) than a December birthday who is 10th percentile relative to their age.

Anonymous wrote:Birthdays really don't play a role at all when this is done right. The kids who should be bio-banding are exceptionally skilled but in the 1-5 percentile of growth charts relative to their age - be that a January or December birthday. Their puberty is also delayed typically. If a kid has gone through puberty and gained significant muscle mass but is still short/small - that would be a factor - as they are peaked out in terms of physical development and no need to make exceptions. Unfortunately, clubs are abusing this waiver system, which is a shame.

"Abuse of the waiver system" doesn't matter. It's actually a good thing because it's forcing opposing players to play up but in a limited fashion. This is why nobody cares. If clubs wanted to win they could play their best players down. When this happens everyone knows what's going on. In this situation who is the winner? The players playing down and not being challenged? Or the players playing against better players that are a year older that are being challenged?