Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our age group, Bethesda and Achilles do this. Our club this year has not.

Based on what you see in BSC, Achilles and Armour, do you feel it is unfair and is used for the sole reason to gain the system to win? Or is it used as per intended?

I have seen other teams do it, and the primary reason is to keep good players from having to leave because they cannot compete with the size or speed or testoserone of more biologically mature players in their age group in MLS Next. The primary beneficiaries should be midfielders. The players whom I've seen do it are average-sized for the age group below them, or perhaps below-average size for that age group. I've seen good players who were 4'10 at 13 or 5' at 14 (maybe true bio age is 11/12) who stopped playing or had to move to lower teams to get playing time, and were then fully grown in 1-2 years. Even if you are quick, you are quickly overpowered, and if you don't think that's the case, then watch a really good U14/U15 MLS Next team try to beat average MLS Next teams or ECNL teams who are one year older. The irony is that there was a lot more tolerance in US youth soccer of smaller players in the old days because fewer pure athletes played at all.

I think this is how it's supposed to be used but one of those clubs used biobanding for a couple kids who are early bloomers but just small. Great players though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In our age group, Bethesda and Achilles do this. Our club this year has not.

Based on what you see in BSC, Achilles and Armour, do you feel it is unfair and is used for the sole reason to gain the system to win? Or is it used as per intended?

I have seen other teams do it, and the primary reason is to keep good players from having to leave because they cannot compete with the size or speed or testoserone of more biologically mature players in their age group in MLS Next. The primary beneficiaries should be midfielders. The players whom I've seen do it are average-sized for the age group below them, or perhaps below-average size for that age group. I've seen good players who were 4'10 at 13 or 5' at 14 (maybe true bio age is 11/12) who stopped playing or had to move to lower teams to get playing time, and were then fully grown in 1-2 years. Even if you are quick, you are quickly overpowered, and if you don't think that's the case, then watch a really good U14/U15 MLS Next team try to beat average MLS Next teams or ECNL teams who are one year older. The irony is that there was a lot more tolerance in US youth soccer of smaller players in the old days because fewer pure athletes played at all.

Anonymous wrote:Will be interesting to see in the next few years if relative age effects are reduced with ECNL on Aug to July while MLSNext/GA on Jan to Dec. Meaning each cutoff favors some but not others and players now have a choice.

Anonymous wrote:Dealing with this right now with my son...offer went out to play his age group (with a Late Developer option). I don't know if this is what bio banding language looks like but would love to hear others' feedback.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is without doubt that size and strength matter in baseball (pitching, batting, throwing).

Agree that soccer is one of the sports where size/height/strength matter the LEAST. Sorry your kid is short, you alreayd picked the best sport for him without some scheme to play down.

Yes, of course size matters in baseball—the size of your GUT! OH! 🔥🤣🤪

But in all seriousness, that’s one of the great things about soccer—a sport that can accommodate all types and still be good in it. The other one that comes to mind is long-distance running, but that is too boring for suburban parents to fight over.

There ARE sports that actually favor smaller stature (as opposed to being kind of neutral about it like soccer), like gymnastics and rock climbing (the latter of which is, IMHO, underrated.)

Where can we find this neutrality where size, early maturity and early bloomers doesn't matter in youth soccer?

Because it sure ain't on the fields

It totally matters, but it’s all relative. Being short is far more of a determinant (or deterrent?) in basketball, for example, than soccer.

You do know the main problem with relative age effect is the Selection process before even getting to the Performance aspects?

The late bloomers and younger biological age kids aren't getting selected to be on top teams.

I was confused by this response until I realized it may not be clear that the PP dissing baseball (me) is not the same as the PP dissing short kids (“sorry your kid is short and therefore stuck with soccer” wtf dude.)

I agree with the general statement that soccer is less size-restrictive relative to other sports. I VERY much disagree with the implication that, as a result, there shouldn’t be bio-banding. Which I think also implies that bio-banding should only be for inherently size-restrictive sports?

I personally have not had to deal with bio-banding—that I’m aware of for certain—but it does sound like it is easily exploited and needs more standardized rules. That does not mean it’s some nefarious “scheme.”

Its use should be limited to the most obvious cases, and they have pediatric size/weight/BMI charts so why not just go by that? Like if your kid is in the single digits percentile for their age, then there shouldn’t be any doubt that the kid is playing down a year only to unfairly advantage a younger team.