Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of kids are not starting to play soccer due to the age cut offs. My oldest kid played club soccer, we spent so many weekends at tournaments, we were all in. My two younger kids born in the fall started playing in preschool with clinics and camps. When it came time to play rec, which is based on calendar year, neither kid wanted to play without their friends. There were 2 year age groupings so my preschooler would have been with kinder and first graders. I suppose if they were really passionate about soccer they would have joined, but with so many other options they play other sports and never started playing soccer. Several younger siblings born in the fall of my oldest child's soccer team opted out as well.

There is no requirement for rec programs to use birth year. Take that up with the club.

players can play up at the travel level too. DD's U9 team has a U8 who has played rec with the other kids for years and made the team. She may or may not repeat U9.

Most defenders on this thread that are against it changing back have kids that will be affected. Likewise the other way.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of kids are not starting to play soccer due to the age cut offs. My oldest kid played club soccer, we spent so many weekends at tournaments, we were all in. My two younger kids born in the fall started playing in preschool with clinics and camps. When it came time to play rec, which is based on calendar year, neither kid wanted to play without their friends. There were 2 year age groupings so my preschooler would have been with kinder and first graders. I suppose if they were really passionate about soccer they would have joined, but with so many other options they play other sports and never started playing soccer. Several younger siblings born in the fall of my oldest child's soccer team opted out as well.

There is no requirement for rec programs to use birth year. Take that up with the club.

A lot of kids are not starting to play soccer due to the age cut offs. My oldest kid played club soccer, we spent so many weekends at tournaments, we were all in. My two younger kids born in the fall started playing in preschool with clinics and camps. When it came time to play rec, which is based on calendar year, neither kid wanted to play without their friends. There were 2 year age groupings so my preschooler would have been with kinder and first graders. I suppose if they were really passionate about soccer they would have joined, but with so many other options they play other sports and never started playing soccer. Several younger siblings born in the fall of my oldest child's soccer team opted out as well.

Anonymous wrote:^college coaches are looking at 16-18 year olds. I ready said to combine the teams at U16.

Soooo, you want to through a newly formed team together right at recruiting age? LOL

Look, I get it, your kid is born in the second half of the calendar and is likely on the smaller side. Changing the cutoffs will not make your kid any better or increase his opportunities. Being on the "younger team" is not the same as being on the "A Team" and playing in a even more diluted environment. And what is worse, is this is essentially your personal Rube Goldberg solution to a very small problem, even by distribution sample size standards.

The best soccer nations in the world do not even do this and they have the numbers to support it.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true.[/quote]

A kid who is on the July through December team knows they are on the B team no matter what you want to call it. The "older" team at every age group will always be perceived as the A team. The July/December team would never win a game against the Jan/June team in a scrimmage. You would actually lose kids faster than ever before.

Being a small kid and being placed on a younger age A team is better than being stuck on a July/December team through HS.

College coaches are still going to be drawn to larger players and will scout those teams predominately.

At some point the kids have to learn to fly on their own.

[/quote]

I know it is DCUM's mindset that everything is survival of the fittest so your dream is to drive out the weak kids, but a governing organization has an interest in having kids continue to play. In smaller nations where they actually train the kids they have instead of constantly looking to find better ones and casting others aside, they have had success in actually developing players and a soccer culture.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Well, it may be that they realize they are limited as players, but if they want to keep going to try to improve, and there is other appropriate competion to match against, why not, if they can afford it? The only other option is one practice a week rec coached by someone's dad, which may not be what they are looking for.

U9-U15: - six month age group

U16 and above: Combined one year age group.

U16 is the spout of the funnel.

^college coaches are looking at 16-18 year olds. I ready said to combine the teams at U16.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true.[/quote]

A kid who is on the July through December team knows they are on the B team no matter what you want to call it. The "older" team at every age group will always be perceived as the A team. The July/December team would never win a game against the Jan/June team in a scrimmage. You would actually lose kids faster than ever before.

Being a small kid and being placed on a younger age A team is better than being stuck on a July/December team through HS.

College coaches are still going to be drawn to larger players and will scout those teams predominately.

At some point the kids have to learn to fly on their own.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true.[/quote]

Six month age group kills smaller clubs who may only field two teams as it is. This clubs would have no ability to field a real A team

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

I think this is correct. How connected is a lower team player to the club? Does a kid on the third team really want to wear a team warmup jacket to school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Younger doesn't mean smaller Why is this so hard? This is common sense. Six month age groups

You haven't read the thread. Size, both large and small has been referred to in bio banding. Significantly larger kids play up and significantly smaller kids play down.

Six month age groups work fine for elementary age kids but not really beyond but bio banding can help out bridge the gap for many players.

Absurd. I'm the who brought up six months age groups. Bio banding is ridiculous. Yet another ill conceived thought by US Soccer. Everyone wants to ot smart each other. Its very very simple.

Six Month age groups.

Exactly what is ridiculous about placing a kid who falls into the 10-15% on either end of their growth spectrum in a age that suits their physical size? Why should an entire age group be affected to suit the needs of so few players?

Another ridiculous assertion. Follow me.

No bio-banding.
Six month age groups

No further accommodations.

If the 10-15 percentile kid cant hang, he should be placed in the lower team until proven otherwise

BUT....there will be A LOT less of that scenario if we move to six month age groups.

Follow me. Beyond elementary school the variance in kid sizes is not great enough to warrant two age groups through high school. You either won the genetic lottery or not. Having two age groups within a birth year is an accommodation and one that unnecessarily affects every player needlessly. There simply is no precedent for it in any sport because there is no need for it at older ages.

No disrespect, but you're showing your lack of understanding for development. You also lack vision for the bigger picture. Its not an accommodation.

I will say again, if you want to create a funnel that separates kids, do so at 16 or 17 years old. Not at 9 or 10.

Sorry, but even with boys the variance does tighten. As they get older it is still far easier to deal with the extreme outliers than an entire age cohort. Because you obviously have a smaller player you might be missing the bigger picture yourself.

There are more kids NOT like your kid than there are kids LIKE your kid. It is an accommodation that frankly cuts right through the middle of kids who actually ARE or closer to average. Your plan breaks down with simple distribution and then the complexity of fielding teams properly. You also assume that soccer coaches care if they lose "small" kids. You're ultimately competing with their bias against smaller players. They might care in elementary school but through middle school they are selecting from technical, tactical and yes, genetic lottery winners. There has always been room for talented smaller kids but there is a real world clock for those who wish to play in college.

And regardless of size a coach can tell if a player can play. I'm with you up until middle school, girl or boy. I also recognize the problem but the solution should be geared towards those more extreme cases and to institute a arbitrary size cutoff through sophomore year is unnecessary. It really won't help in the way that you believe it would because again, the variance tightens more and more in the middle where MOST kids really are whether they are boys or girls.

Actually, it isn't so much size as simply development, physical and mental. I've watched kids of all sizes born later in the year drop out of soccer.

But how does this really help in development? You've created more hierarchy than is necessary at older ages. And then add in separate coaches per cutoff. That won't get expensive in a sport that is already pricing itself out of households. And of course one coach will be perceived as better and kids will want to be on that team.

This is a fine idea in elementary school but completely unworkable beyond that.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It will be switched back. Money is the driving factor. Numbers are low.[/quote]

Kids always left in middle school. Kids interests change in middle school. Lots of activities lose kids then. Every blackbelt daycare factory loses 95% of their clients at middle school too. Every gymnastics and dance school suffers the same fate.

Basketball and volley ball lose 80% of their elementary age players. Interests, size and more play a far greater role than a participation cutoff date.

Soccer suffers more from clubs like Arlington and Loudoun fielding 6+ teams deep through U13 and kids who don't move up get bored. Clubs are not losing players at the top to other sports they are losing kids on B, C and D teams in middle school because kids tend to see it for what it is, garbage play and they recognize their own limitations.

Thinking a soccer club should be 4+ teams deep at 11v11 is insane for travel level soccer. No kid teenager is giving up 3-4 nights a week to be on the 4th team unless they truly love playing. No age group cutoff will ever solve that. [/quote]

Six month age groups will solve some of that. It would cut the number of lower teams in half. It would keep more kids on the A team. So, not true.