Another US Soccer idea...

In my mind US Soccer needs to learn to walk before it can run. "Bio Banding" is an advanced and unproven concept (or as one expert called it, a "joke"). USSF needs to prove that it can develop a program to consistently produce internationally competitive players (let alone world class players which it claims is the purpose of the DA) before it embarks on an program as specialized and speculative as bio banding. DA has not proven its ability to do develop this level of player, mainly because its a league, not a development program, and USSF has comparatively little investment in its success.

Unfortunately, I know more about bone density and bone age than I should have to as parent. Bone density is the only reliable way to determine where you are on the growth curve. While taking the parents height and kids weight might give an indication of a child's final height it will not tell you where the child is on the growth/maturation curve. Are they going to MRI kids for bio banded tournaments and have to have an MD create the brackets based upon that data? Bio banding is primarily designed to benefit the late developer. Can you imagine the claims of "sand bagging" when a kid 2 years older then his bone age, and with 2 more years training, starts dominating younger kids at a bio banded tourney! With the emphasis on winning I wouldn't put it past a club to put together teams of young bone aged kids.

It appears that the clubs mentioned use bio banding in training with a split of age based training. I guess I can see some benefit to doing that on a club basis but not on a nationally competitive basis. My sons team often practiced or scrimmaged within the club with teams both younger and older...not exactly apples to oranges, though. How is "bio banding" going to work with pay-to-play? Are parents going to tolerate their kid being moved to a younger team away from their friends and peer group?

I also worry about bio banding backfiring in the US. Smaller, slower kids have to play smarter against bigger, faster kids. I think its safe to say that comparatively speaking the US has a shortage of the smarter, technical and tactical player, but no shortage of the athletic player. Is putting the smaller kid with kids his own size group going to negatively impact his need to play smarter?

I don't have the answers but it seems to me USSF is putting the cart before the horse.
 
watfly said:
In my mind US Soccer needs to learn to walk before it can run. "Bio Banding" is an advanced and unproven concept (or as one expert called it, a "joke"). USSF needs to prove that it can develop a program to consistently produce internationally competitive players (let alone world class players which it claims is the purpose of the DA) before it embarks on an program as specialized and speculative as bio banding. DA has not proven its ability to do develop this level of player, mainly because its a league, not a development program, and USSF has comparatively little investment in its success.

Unfortunately, I know more about bone density and bone age than I should have to as parent. Bone density is the only reliable way to determine where you are on the growth curve. While taking the parents height and kids weight might give an indication of a child's final height it will not tell you where the child is on the growth/maturation curve. Are they going to MRI kids for bio banded tournaments and have to have an MD create the brackets based upon that data? Bio banding is primarily designed to benefit the late developer. Can you imagine the claims of "sand bagging" when a kid 2 years older then his bone age, and with 2 more years training, starts dominating younger kids at a bio banded tourney! With the emphasis on winning I wouldn't put it past a club to put together teams of young bone aged kids.

It appears that the clubs mentioned use bio banding in training with a split of age based training. I guess I can see some benefit to doing that on a club basis but not on a nationally competitive basis. My sons team often practiced or scrimmaged within the club with teams both younger and older...not exactly apples to oranges, though. How is "bio banding" going to work with pay-to-play? Are parents going to tolerate their kid being moved to a younger team away from their friends and peer group?

I also worry about bio banding backfiring in the US. Smaller, slower kids have to play smarter against bigger, faster kids. I think its safe to say that comparatively speaking the US has a shortage of the smarter, technical and tactical player, but no shortage of the athletic player. Is putting the smaller kid with kids his own size group going to negatively impact his need to play smarter?

I don't have the answers but it seems to me USSF is putting the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...
All good points, imho. We should develop ANYONE to international standards. Pulisic did the opposite of bio-banding. He played with kids 2 years older when he was a skinny little guy.
 
MWN said:
The powers that be at the DA have made it very clear that DA clubs receive kudos and points for developing players that get invited to National Training camps, and team standings, etc., are not important. For this reason, DA tournaments are typically "showcases," where teams play 4 teams over a 5 day period and not "tournaments" with a champion. The DA doesn't even keep standings until U15. Playoffs are limited to the top 3 teams from each region with a few wildcards thrown in. Coaches at the DA level are also encouraged to play players up.

The DA could really care less if clubs are at the top or bottom of the standings, as long as, those clubs are competitive and following the DA program. The DA also tracks where players move from/to, knowing that the MLS residential programs can often pick and chose from the non-residential programs.

Contrast this with club soccer, where clubs need wins to attract parents/players. Winning programs grow and trophies are critical because most parents in club/competitive soccer perceive winning programs with college opportunities, and they would be basically correct because winning programs also tend to garner more interest and make more appearances at college showcases. "Gaming the system" is a necessary evil given the importance of wins to the customer base and will continue to be an ever present issue because parents value team performance and trophies over player development. This system rewards direct play, kick ball, over the top as a primary strategy because it results in wins against weaker teams. At the DA level, Academy Directors and Technical Directors are talked to consistently about correct training and their coaches are counseled to train their players correctly.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I've been saying in here, but people don't seem to want to hear it. In many ways DA is _less_competative than Coast - and that's a good thing.
 
ATRTDT said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but more kids in Europe aren't even going to high school. They are simply giving up their amateur status and focusing 100% on their sport and getting by with a basic education.

The pressures off if they fail since most universitys don't come with a price tag. These kids can reach for their dreams earlier with minor financial impact on the tail end.
Click to expand...
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...

Not nitpicking but hope you don't think for moment that soccer scholarship pays for full tuition and board. The NCAA limit on scholarship for soccer is about 1/3 of the total roster. Its almost unheard of to hear a full ride on soccer alone. Grades and socioeconomic need to play apart for that to happen.

There's nothing stopping players to go pro and if it doesn't work out, one can always apply and attend college for its primary purpose - formal education. Its usually the parents that won't let the kid take the chance to goto Europe, South America or wherever to try to make it. Yeah there is that Visa thing too. But many have means to do it (e.g., dual citizenship) yet still do not.

In my personal view, its not USSoccer. The key is with MLS. Once the major league sports really takes off (needs to be on the same schedule as the rest of the world too) and becomes on par with the rest of the world, the kids will have the desire to want to become a pro - just as NBA, NFL, MLB. Then it will be a lot easier to have a national team that can compete.

As a parent of a former DA player (November 23rd birthday, graduated from HS at 17 yrs old) now playing college, and a current regular club player (SCDSL Flt 1), this Bio-Banding is unnecessary micro management of age group for the very competitive players and only hurt them. There are plenty of smaller, less bulky players thriving against the bigger. What this will do is to bring the top 10~15 % into more competitive range. It will hurt the top 0.5~1% by watering it down for them.

I believe we give too little credit for individual desire and will to succeed, and try to fix everything systemically by adding more layers and procedures.

How old was Pale and size compared to adults that competed against in his first WC? I think you get what I mean......
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...

Which is why US Soccer implemented Nike Project40, now Generation Adidas.
 
focomoso said:
Which means that the answer to US Soccer's dreams is, wait for it... free college tuition! (Or having the NCAA allow kids who have turned pro to play in college later if they don't make it.)
Click to expand...
The latter thing is very important. For the kid who wants to stay Academy and try pro at 19-23 or so to have to forego collegiate eligibility is bad for both systems.
 
US soccer put out a video:


Good for US trying to do something about the status quo. The stick figure's get the point across even if the production looks like something out of HS.

I have mixed feeling personally about how this applies to the real world.

I feel both my kids benefited tremendously from playing vs bigger, stronger & older kids regularly for a number of years. There where kind of forced to focus on technical skills since that was their "pathway" to be competitive". This benefited them a bunch by the time they grew to the same size as the other players in HS. Without playing up or vs older players I don't think they would have developed as much but it was not easy by any stretch, developing mental toughness and taking your lumps is not for everyone so I can see why physically this could help out some players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top