This is a waste of a thread. Not happening even if DA people are angling...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

You are missing the point. The first change was traumatic but kids bonded with their new teammates as the years went by. No kid wants their team to be broken up again, and there isn't any compelling reason sufficient to justify the amount of disruption another age change would cause. If anything, it would cause soccer to lose kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

My kid is a U11. I know this because he was born in 2009.
Simple.
Why make things more complicated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

You're really trying hard to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Talk to college coaches. This is a recruiting issue.

The current system is fine if you have a rec player uninterested in college, of course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

You're really trying hard to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[quote=Anonymous]My understanding of key points on why changing back to the original age groups is being discussed:

1. aligning the age groups with the start and end of the soccer year (Aug 1 thru end of July)
2. more natural alignment with social circles created by schools - (has been suggested this is more important at younger ages and at the recreational level)
3. easier management of the last year of youth soccer where clubs can have challenges managing combined 11th and 12th teams as part of the team graduates out each year and can very greatly
4. for college recruitment allows college coaches when watching teams play to easier understand graduation year instead of having split grad year teams


DA wanted the ability for its national team scouts to see players based on international competition rules (birth year), no other reason.

As a parent my kid benefited in being a DA player with an early month calendar birthday but overall see why changing back should be considered over the long term. I do know going through the college recruiting process and the rules instituted by the NCAA makes recruiting more messy to manage a team with half the team being one grade under one set of rules and the other half in another grade with a different set of rules.[/quote]

No one wants to go through the age change again. This would be incredibly stupid and break up teams that have been together since the last age change.

Anonymous wrote:lol what do you do with the 16 year old who just immigrated to the US, english is a second language and is placed in 9th grade academics?

That kid's family is probably smart enough to not pay 1000's of $ a year for their kid to play soccer (unlike all of us here).

Anonymous wrote:lol what do you do with the 16 year old who just immigrated to the US, english is a second language and is placed in 9th grade academics?

Gosh you people are slow.

Try to understand the basics, then post. Also, you should really not be disparaging children.

lol what do you do with the 16 year old who just immigrated to the US, english is a second language and is placed in 9th grade academics?

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

Since we're primarily talking about club soccer here, kids come from schools all over the area, so the argument is moot about playing with their schoolmates. When they play in middle school or high school then they'll still be with their peers because those are school-based/grade-based activities. The only place it could be argued to come into play is for juniors and rec as no elementary schools have their own soccer teams.

Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For what it's worth, switching the age group definitions back to the original paradigm benefits our youngest players, the 7-10 year olds. Most of them starting out at u9/u10 travel can't even run in a straight line or kick the ball correctly. They're not ready to play soccer. Give them another year to grow and mature and maybe we'll see more kids interested in playing soccer again. Remember, kids can still play up.