Anonymous
12/17/2020 11:45
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
America today in a nutshell. Instead of focusing on how to get better, let's talk about how to change rules (or preserve them), or why this rule is unfair to this group (which means that an alternative would necessarily be unfair to another). The incessant blaming, the relentless whines, the focus on rules instead of improvement, the resentment of others, the parental angling for any advantage, it's all just so f'n repulsive. Can it.
Anonymous
12/17/2020 11:17
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Lol. No....it wasn't a year and a half . The world is using the Jan-Dec grouping for international play. Our club system was using Sept - Aug.
The kids who were benefiting and getting identified were the Sept - Dec kids because they were the oldest. This didn't translate to international play because we were putting Sept-Dec kids up against Jan-March kids during international play.
To combat this, they changed the age group to align with international competetion standards. Now they are identifying Jan-Mar kids to compete with Jan to Mar kids.
Except our club systems "best players" were Sept-Dec kids who were 9-12 months later than the international. Our Jan-Mar kids were not getting the club advantage that the Sept-Dec kids were getting.
Nothing has changed. Those Sept-Dec kids are still better and now playing up a year. Who do you think the college coaches will choose to recruit? Remember they are still in the same school grade. The Jan-Mar kids and parents are being misled.
How are Jan-Mar kids being misled?
Anonymous
12/16/2020 19:02
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Lol. No....it wasn't a year and a half . The world is using the Jan-Dec grouping for international play. Our club system was using Sept - Aug.
The kids who were benefiting and getting identified were the Sept - Dec kids because they were the oldest. This didn't translate to international play because we were putting Sept-Dec kids up against Jan-March kids during international play.
To combat this, they changed the age group to align with international competetion standards. Now they are identifying Jan-Mar kids to compete with Jan to Mar kids.
Except our club systems "best players" were Sept-Dec kids who were 9-12 months later than the international. Our Jan-Mar kids were not getting the club advantage that the Sept-Dec kids were getting.
Nothing has changed. Those Sept-Dec kids are still better and now playing up a year. Who do you think the college coaches will choose to recruit? Remember they are still in the same school grade. The Jan-Mar kids and parents are being misled.
Anonymous
12/16/2020 12:51
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Lol. No....it wasn't a year and a half . The world is using the Jan-Dec grouping for international play. Our club system was using Sept - Aug.
The kids who were benefiting and getting identified were the Sept - Dec kids because they were the oldest. This didn't translate to international play because we were putting Sept-Dec kids up against Jan-March kids during international play.
To combat this, they changed the age group to align with international competetion standards. Now they are identifying Jan-Mar kids to compete with Jan to Mar kids.
Except our club systems "best players" were Sept-Dec kids who were 9-12 months later than the international. Our Jan-Mar kids were not getting the club advantage that the Sept-Dec kids were getting.
Anonymous
12/16/2020 12:48
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Lol. No....it wasn't a year and a half . The world is using the Jan-Dec grouping for international play. Our club system was using Sept - Aug.
The kids who were benefiting and getting identified were the Sept - Dec kids because they were the oldest. This didn't translate to international play because we were putting Sept-Dec kids up against Jan-March kids during international play.
To combat this, they changed the age group to align with international competetion standards. Now they are identifying Jan-Mar kids to compete with Jan to Mar kids.
And we still can't compete...
Anonymous
12/15/2020 16:45
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Lol. No....it wasn't a year and a half . The world is using the Jan-Dec grouping for international play. Our club system was using Sept - Aug.
The kids who were benefiting and getting identified were the Sept - Dec kids because they were the oldest. This didn't translate to international play because we were putting Sept-Dec kids up against Jan-March kids during international play.
To combat this, they changed the age group to align with international competetion standards. Now they are identifying Jan-Mar kids to compete with Jan to Mar kids.
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:39
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
The combating RAE was always lip service and it was just to make the effect more obvious, thus increasing awareness. But clubs didn't and don't care about it as much as the bottom line that is driven by wins.
But US soccer was trying to scout for Youth National team players in a age cutoff that had us at a year and a half disadvantage player pool wise. It was hard to tell in a relative sense which players could hang or not.
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:33
Subject: US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
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.
so basically you want every club that fields less that 4 teams per age group to either fold or have to field uncompetitive teams in order to fill out rosters? Sounds greats for the Arlingtons and Alexandrias
You are misunderstanding the premise which lies in a few assumptions and facts.
Using dual age groupings per year is intended to fight the affects of Relative Age Effect and to be more inclusive of all players, ultimately resulting in more players participating overall. It is well known that kids born in the first 4 months of the cutoff year have a higher selection rate for youth "A teams". This early selection offers 1/4 of the kids opportunities that benefit and become a self fulfilling prophecy for years to come.
Late year kids, who are mostly smaller and lack a year of skill development (at 7 years old that is a long time) often fail to make top teams and therefore do not train with the "best players", get the best coaching or play in the top youth leagues for development. They simply get left behind.
The idea to have dual age groups within a birth year is intended to give those second half of year kids an opportunity at the same developmental opportunities they didn't have before simply due to size and maturity at such young ages.
that may be the intent, but if the effect is having U10 old and U10 young which means clubs will now have to fill out those teams. No small club has enough players to do it based on skill (which would probably require 4 teams per age group to get an a and b team for young and old), so either they focus on the old team and just play kids up and field the same teams as before without fielding the young version or the group by age and not skill
Then you play the team in the age group that best suits their age and talent level. It wouldn't be a mandate to field two "A teams" as much as it would be an opportunity to do so. The intent is to have a equal distribution of players based on calendar months by middle school as is naturally possible. Younger kids are disproportionately placed on lower level teams where they may often remain stuck until some either quit or a few move up slowly year by year. By middle school Top A teams will have less than a quarter of their roster represented by kid born in the second half of the cutoff year. Is this really because older kids are truly better or have more potential at soccer?
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:28
Subject: US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
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.
so basically you want every club that fields less that 4 teams per age group to either fold or have to field uncompetitive teams in order to fill out rosters? Sounds greats for the Arlingtons and Alexandrias
You are misunderstanding the premise which lies in a few assumptions and facts.
Using dual age groupings per year is intended to fight the affects of Relative Age Effect and to be more inclusive of all players, ultimately resulting in more players participating overall. It is well known that kids born in the first 4 months of the cutoff year have a higher selection rate for youth "A teams". This early selection offers 1/4 of the kids opportunities that benefit and become a self fulfilling prophecy for years to come.
Late year kids, who are mostly smaller and lack a year of skill development (at 7 years old that is a long time) often fail to make top teams and therefore do not train with the "best players", get the best coaching or play in the top youth leagues for development. They simply get left behind.
The idea to have dual age groups within a birth year is intended to give those second half of year kids an opportunity at the same developmental opportunities they didn't have before simply due to size and maturity at such young ages.
that may be the intent, but if the effect is having U10 old and U10 young which means clubs will now have to fill out those teams. No small club has enough players to do it based on skill (which would probably require 4 teams per age group to get an a and b team for young and old), so either they focus on the old team and just play kids up and field the same teams as before without fielding the young version or the group by age and not skill
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:28
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
It was both - easier to keep track of and the same as international. You know, the same as international for the 1% of players who play internationally.
https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:25
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
Anonymous wrote:As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
No it wasn't to identify them, it was simply to be on the same page internationally with RAE.
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:23
Subject: US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
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.
so basically you want every club that fields less that 4 teams per age group to either fold or have to field uncompetitive teams in order to fill out rosters? Sounds greats for the Arlingtons and Alexandrias
You are misunderstanding the premise which lies in a few assumptions and facts.
Using dual age groupings per year is intended to fight the affects of Relative Age Effect and to be more inclusive of all players, ultimately resulting in more players participating overall. It is well known that kids born in the first 4 months of the cutoff year have a higher selection rate for youth "A teams". This early selection offers 1/4 of the kids opportunities that benefit and become a self fulfilling prophecy for years to come.
Late year kids, who are mostly smaller and lack a year of skill development (at 7 years old that is a long time) often fail to make top teams and therefore do not train with the "best players", get the best coaching or play in the top youth leagues for development. They simply get left behind.
The idea to have dual age groups within a birth year is intended to give those second half of year kids an opportunity at the same developmental opportunities they didn't have before simply due to size and maturity at such young ages.
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:16
Subject: Re:US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
As a general FYI, one of the reasons given for changing to calendar year age groups was that it would make it easier for coaches to identify late birthdays and to ensure that those born in the later part of the year would not be overlooked. That absolutely didn't happen, but that was supposed to be one of the reasons for change.
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:14
Subject: US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
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.
so basically you want every club that fields less that 4 teams per age group to either fold or have to field uncompetitive teams in order to fill out rosters? Sounds greats for the Arlingtons and Alexandrias
What are you talking about?
If a club has an A team and a B team, how do you think 6 month age groups work? You form two new teams based on age, but all of the sudden they are mixed by skill level too, so a worse experience for everyone involved. That's assuming they can even do a split resulting in two viable teams
Anonymous
12/15/2020 15:05
Subject: US soccer rumors of changing back age groups?
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.
so basically you want every club that fields less that 4 teams per age group to either fold or have to field uncompetitive teams in order to fill out rosters? Sounds greats for the Arlingtons and Alexandrias
What are you talking about?