# Another US Soccer idea...



## timbuck (Apr 5, 2018)

I guess I can applaud US Soccer for not being satisfied with the status quo. 
But - damn they seem to come up with a new “silver bullet” every 4 months. 
This installment is a “Bio Banding” pilot with 4 DA teams. 

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/05/15/45/20180405-news-us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative


----------



## GKDad65 (Apr 5, 2018)

Next they'll create another damn league for the "Bio-Banded" teams.
It'll be in the So. Cal. treasure chest region soon!

Is there any hope for US Soccer?


----------



## Dummy (Apr 5, 2018)

GKDad65 said:


> Next they'll create another damn league for the "Bio-Banded" teams.
> It'll be in the So. Cal. treasure chest region soon!
> 
> Is there any hope for US Soccer?


No.


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 5, 2018)

I agree with all these sentiments.  Like the OP, I appreciate their gusto for trying to improve and tweak.  This is a wonderfully novel and idealistic concept that should have been killed in the meeting in which it was brought up.  US Soccer defines "ambition without reality."


----------



## timbuck (Apr 5, 2018)

Is this designed to help the bigger kid?  Have them play with other bigger kids so they can't just rely on their size to make them "look like" a soccer star?
Or for the smaller kid?  Let them compete against kids their same size without getting "blown up" by the big kid?


----------



## Overlap (Apr 5, 2018)

timbuck said:


> I guess I can applaud US Soccer for not being satisfied with the status quo.
> But - damn they seem to come up with a new “silver bullet” every 4 months.
> This installment is a “Bio Banding” pilot with 4 DA teams.
> 
> https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/04/05/15/45/20180405-news-us-soccer-introduces-bio-banding-initiative


Bio height/weight next?


----------



## oh canada (Apr 5, 2018)

Thanks for sharing tb, wouldn't have seen this otherwise.  I don't have any issues with it -- just a 1x event to gather some data and brainstorm ideas based upon it.  If we make fun of out-of-the-box thinking then we will never get anything different.  Sometimes new things work, sometimes they don't.  But you can't be afraid to try.  Ask Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos.


----------



## jayjay (Apr 5, 2018)

Not such a novel idea... 
https://www.premierleague.com/news/58833

An objective test is a bone age xray will tell you where your child is at maturation-wise based on how growth plates.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

I applaud the US for finally bringing bio-banding to everyone's attention. It's growing rapidly in the UK. To those who haven't heard of it, a calculation is made of a player's potential future height, based on their gender, current age, current height and parents ages and heights. From there, a player is given a % based on how close they are to reaching their peak height velocity. Players are then grouped as such: 80-85%, 85-90% or even closer if the player pool is large.

Its a great step in player development and helps those later developers to compete and not be cut from teams because of their height, and then at the other challenges those players who have matured early and just use their size and speed to beat players without learning the technical skills they will need when everyone evens out later down the road.


----------



## full90 (Apr 5, 2018)

Saw this somewhere else regarding this: why not just keep single year teams in order to closely monitor all of the kids' development? But instead, they do double birth year teams so the smaller kids (who bio banding is really for) are pushed out for a year....it makes zero sense.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 5, 2018)

How about this?
We alreay have several tiers/flights/groups.
What we need are coaches that do a better job with all tiers.
A small but skilled kid at 11 on a Flight 2 team should be getting good coaching so he/she can have a chance to compete when they are able to handle playing against bigger players.
And/or we need referees to crack down on overly physical players at the younger age groups. Don’t let thug ball exist and coaches won’t recruit “enforcers” with poor skills.


----------



## jpeter (Apr 5, 2018)

Wow all we need is the special designation for these players so they can now wear the new patch:


----------



## full90 (Apr 5, 2018)

Ugh. the snowflake label is so trite and shallow. Anyone with feelings or opinions is a snowflake? You can think something is wrong or unfair or poorly done and not be wrecked by it. Both things can exist. You can want something to change and also not be shaken when it isn't. Throwing the label of "snowflake" at something is so simplistic and overdone. Man up and have a conversation.


----------



## MWN (Apr 5, 2018)

timbuck said:


> Is this designed to help the bigger kid?  Have they play with other bigger kids so they can't just rely on their size to make them "look like" a soccer star?
> Or for the smaller kid?  Let them compete against kids their same size without getting "blown up" by the big kid?


I'm a little disappointed that many are taking a negative stance and poking fun on what is designed to help the USSF put kids in groups that are more commensurate with their physical maturity.  If you watched the video and looked at some of the literature on the issue, the answer to your questions are:

Yes, in that it will help the bigger kid (faster maturer) by putting that player with others of similar size, which will demand the bigger kid rely on skill rather than powering through their age group using just size and speed.  On the negative side for this group, it will mean some of the early developers will be shown to be mediocre when playing against others of similar physical development.

Yes, designed to help the smaller kid (slower maturer) by putting that player with others of a similar size, which will enable the smaller kids to continue to develop their skills/talent while they wait for puberty to kick in.  These late developers are the primary beneficiaries of the bio-banding.

In PopWarner Football, they have a designation called "Older but Lighter," which is essentially similar to the above USSF trial program in that is allows older players under a certain weight limit to play down on younger teams.

This won't disrupt the current age matrix because the jury is still out.  It will give the USSF some data as it implements these trial programs to see if making future changes are warranted.


----------



## *GOBEARGO* (Apr 5, 2018)

full90 said:


> Ugh. the snowflake label is so trite and shallow. Anyone with feelings or opinions is a snowflake? You can think something is wrong or unfair or poorly done and not be wrecked by it. Both things can exist. You can want something to change and also not be shaken when it isn't. Throwing the label of "snowflake" at something is so simplistic and overdone. Man up and have a conversation.


Triggered.


----------



## InTheValley (Apr 5, 2018)

Seriously, can US Soccer do anything right?  I can guarantee that any systematic implementation will make the girls side worse.

Why?  Because adversity makes players better. If you couldn’t cut it with your own age group peers, the simple fact of the matter is that you were never going to be a great soccer player.  And who is to say that the embarrassment of being a mediocre 9th grade soccer player playing with middle schoolers, instead of your friends and emotional peers, is a better life experience than giving up soccer and filling that extra time with piano?

Do you remember when the age cut off was July 31?  It is no accident that most of the best players were born in the last four months of the age range.  Perhaps the 3 best players the US currently has to offer (Rapinoe, Lloyd and Morgan) were all born in July. So were Dunn and McCaskill.  At least 8 more were born in April-June (Dahlkemper, Horan, Pugh, Sauerbrawn, Ertz, Williams, and Heath).  The list of players born in the first 4 months (Aug-Nov) is sparse, however (Klingenberg, Davidson, O’Hara, Short, Long).  Shoot, even Wambach, Chastain, Solo and Lilly were born in June or July.

Our best players obviously didn’t need bio banding.  To the contrary, those kids who faced the most physical adversity have systematically become the best players overall, with very few exceptions. Removing that challenge is counter productive unless the goal is to try to make everyone happy.  And we know that is not US Soccer’s goal. US Soccer’s goal is to destroy soccer in the US with one stupid idea after the next.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Apr 5, 2018)

I didn't know we had a U.S. Soccer High Performance Department, must be something new.


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 5, 2018)

can someone tell me when are the tryouts for flight 2 - Bio Band: Chubby - 65% Speed - Happy personality?  

and please tell me what bio band did Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Neymar belong to?

and while you're at it, how many male world soccer stars has the US produced that only made it because of their physical advantage? actually please tell me about US male soccer stars period lol


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 5, 2018)

oh canada said:


> I don't have any issues with it -- just a 1x event to gather some data and brainstorm ideas based upon it. If we make fun of out-of-the-box thinking then we will never get anything different.


Ok, I can get with that.  True enough.



ItsCalledSoccer said:


> a calculation is made of a player's potential future height, based on their gender, current age, current height and parents ages and heights. From there, a player is given a % based on how close they are to reaching their peak height velocity. Players are then grouped as such: 80-85%, 85-90% or even closer if the player pool is large.


and 



jayjay said:


> An objective test is a bone age xray will tell you where your child is at maturation-wise based on how growth plates.


These two points are where I fail to see how bio-banding can be implemented in any realistic way in forms other than one off tournaments like this.  Can you imagine the clusterf*#k that would ensue if this sort of process was implemented by our current pay-to-play club director geniuses who (like it or not) are as a group responsible for the products that US Soccer tries to form into international players?  No, no, and no.  


MWN said:


> I'm a little disappointed that many are taking a negative stance and poking fun on what is designed to help the USSF put kids in groups that are more commensurate with their physical maturity.


I think the idea is actually very sound in itself.  For years I have wished that schools didn't sort grades by birth year because everyone really does mature (physically and mentally) at different paces, and the ideal situation would be where all students were grouped according to bio-age.  But implementing such a change in public schools would be a disaster.  The key word is "ideal."  Ideal and reality just don't share the same space.  And I think US Soccer would be more well served to try to subvert the cancerous growth of pay-to-play than to keep feeding the latest age-group change solutions into an already malfunctioning piece of machinery.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

So sad that people are failing to recognise the advantages of this system. No it shouldn't be used at every level, but it is commonly used in academies all over Europe and is proving a huge success. The US tries to follow suit and people trash talk it...shame.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

FlashDrive said:


> can someone tell me when are the tryouts for flight 2 - Bio Band: Chubby - 65% Speed - Happy personality?
> 
> and please tell me what bio band did Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Neymar belong to?
> 
> and while you're at it, how many male world soccer stars has the US produced that only made it because of their physical advantage? actually please tell me about US male soccer stars period lol


Do some research before you make silly comments, unless you're just fishing for likes. Players change bands as they mature, that's the whole point.


----------



## El Clasico (Apr 5, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> So sad that people are failing to recognise the advantages of this system. No it shouldn't be used at every level, but it is commonly used in academies all over Europe and is proving a huge success. The US tries to follow suit and people trash talk it...shame.


Can you be a little more specific?  A huge success at what?


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Apr 5, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> So sad that people are failing to recognise the advantages of this system. No it shouldn't be used at every level, but it is commonly used in academies all over Europe and is proving a huge success. The US tries to follow suit and people trash talk it...shame.


Their big sally won't be buldozing 10 goals in U8 ball anymore - of course people are unhappy.


----------



## Dummy (Apr 5, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> So sad that people are failing to recognise the advantages of this system. No it shouldn't be used at every level, but it is commonly used in academies all over Europe and is proving a huge success. The US tries to follow suit and people trash talk it...shame.


Please share which European academies use this model and the standards that they applied to determine that it’s implementation was a huge success.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

LadiesMan217 said:


> Their big sally won't be buldozing 10 goals in U8 ball anymore - of course people are unhappy.


Lol I highly doubt it would come in at U8, its usually used for 12-16 year olds who are going through puberty and growing at very different rates, but I see where you are coming from!


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

Dummy said:


> Please share which European academies use this model and the standards that they applied to determine that it’s implementation was a huge success.


Well in the UK, you can start with Southampton, who are arguably the best academy in England and have produced more national team players than any of the other clubs in the past decade, plus Bale for Wales of course. They are pioneering it in England and a whole host of other clubs are following suit. If it's good enough for them, its good enough for the US. Again, for the top players, not little Jimmy and Sally at U7.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 5, 2018)

What would have been the really smart thing to do... Roll this out when they rolled out the Age Group changes.  Roll it out as a "pilot" in a few regions or even offer it as a flight in a few tournaments to see how it is accepted and if it provides any developmental benefit for kids.
I know they are trying this at the Academy level.  I'd like to think that at this level, there truly are the most skilled kids.  And if a kid is really skilled and mature that he is moved up an age bracket (if not permanently, then at least for a game or 2).
I bet if you took Flight 1, 2 and 3 teams right now and looked at the ages and "bio-band" ages, there's a pretty good chances that the more "mature" kids are in Flight 1 (and are likely born between January and April).
How do they flight teams in the rest of the world?


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 5, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> Do some research before you make silly comments, unless you're just fishing for likes. Players change bands as they mature, that's the whole point.


oh I'm sorry I hurt some feelings, silly me

you win, you win, you win, and you win, everyone wins!  Trophies for everyone


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

timbuck said:


> What would have been the really smart thing to do... Roll this out when they rolled out the Age Group changes.  Roll it out as a "pilot" in a few regions or even offer it as a flight in a few tournaments to see how it is accepted and if it provides any developmental benefit for kids.
> I know they are trying this at the Academy level.  I'd like to think that at this level, there truly are the most skilled kids.  And if a kid is really skilled and mature that he is moved up an age bracket (if not permanently, then at least for a game or 2).
> I bet if you took Flight 1, 2 and 3 teams right now and looked at the ages and "bio-band" ages, there's a pretty good chances that the more "mature" kids are in Flight 1 (and are likely born between January and April).
> How do they flight teams in the rest of the world?


Yes, but I guess it depends how deeply US Soccer are going to commit to this. In England at least, this is only done in the professional academies. Obviously kids play up a year, but there is much more to bio banding than playing up.

I assume they will be trialling it with the DA program. As far as I know, its only being done with 12-16 year olds, so for all the U-Little players who are just bigger kids, there are other ways of coaching them and challenging them individually.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 5, 2018)

FlashDrive said:


> oh I'm sorry I hurt some feelings, silly me
> 
> you win, you win, you win, and you win, everyone wins!  Trophies for everyone


Lol how is this about everyone winning? So the kid who is bigger than everyone else and has matured quicker, would be placed with older players, where he/she would be challenged more and less likely to win. It's literally the opposite.


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 5, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> Lol how is this about everyone winning? So the kid who is bigger than everyone else and has matured quicker, would be placed with older players, where he/she would be challenged more and less likely to win. It's literally the opposite.


oh I thought we called that simply playing up lol


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Apr 6, 2018)

FlashDrive said:


> can someone tell me when are the tryouts for flight 2 - Bio Band: Chubby - 65% Speed - Happy personality?
> 
> and please tell me what bio band did Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Neymar belong to?
> 
> and while you're at it, how many male world soccer stars has the US produced that only made it because of their physical advantage? actually please tell me about US male soccer stars period lol


I won't school you in your lack of soccer knowledge. Rather than make you look bad I will let you do a bit of research on those 4 players and you will see the bio bands they were in. They did not play age group soccer.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Ok, I can get with that.  True enough.
> 
> These two points are where I fail to see how bio-banding can be implemented in any realistic way in forms other than one off tournaments like this.  Can you imagine the clusterf*#k that would ensue if this sort of process was implemented by our current pay-to-play club director geniuses who (like it or not) are as a group responsible for the products that US Soccer tries to form into international players?  No, no, and no.
> 
> I think the idea is actually very sound in itself.  For years I have wished that schools didn't sort grades by birth year because everyone really does mature (physically and mentally) at different paces, and the ideal situation would be where all students were grouped according to bio-age.  But implementing such a change in public schools would be a disaster.  The key word is "ideal."  Ideal and reality just don't share the same space.  And I think US Soccer would be more well served to try to subvert the cancerous growth of pay-to-play than to keep feeding the latest age-group change solutions into an already malfunctioning piece of machinery.


*Bio-Banding Supplements Academy Training and its not a Replacement*

If we look at the English clubs that are experimenting with Bio-Banding, it has been reserved for the Academy system (top 1% of youth players) and is used purely for tournaments, simply a supplemental addition to the existing academy teams.  So there is little likelihood that we would see this experiment outside the DA program because it would be a waste to use it on kids that have no reasonable shot at professional or national team play.

*Soccer In the US Is Not a legitimate Revenue Sport (yet) that eliminate pay to play at the higher levels.*

With regard to Pay-2-Play.  Obviously, the US is a long, long, long way off from having anything close to the self-supported academy's in England due to the following:

(1) we have no legitimate professional leagues capable of playing at a high level on par with European and Latin American teams, thus, the revenue generating capabilities of the MLS lags terribly behind the rest of the world.  As such, there isn't enough money to train/invest in youth soccer players by the so-called pro leagues (MLS and USL);

(2) the USSF and Players Council have so far rejected supporting FIFA's solidarity and training payments, thereby, eliminating incentives for all but the MLS and non-MLS clubs to "invest" in players.  (see, https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/restructuring-us-mens-youth-development_aid43811).  Note, the only incentive MLS clubs have is the "home grown player" exception; and,

(3) we have no viable 3rd and below tiers (levels) that would support investment in youth programs.  Compare that to England were they have over 11 tiers (levels) and more below that.  To put this is perspective, the Level 7 Norther Premier League (not to be confused with the Premier League) Coalville Town Club's transfer value is $518k pounds on 13 players compares to the LA Galaxy's Academy (3rd team, comparable to a 4th level) with a value of  608k pounds on 33 players.  

Pay to play is here to stay until soccer can displace baseball (which BTW is a pay to play sport).


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> *Bio-Banding Supplements Academy Training and its not a Replacement*
> 
> If we look at the English clubs that are experimenting with Bio-Banding, it has been reserved for the Academy system (top 1% of youth players) and is used purely for tournaments, simply a supplemental addition to the existing academy teams.  So there is little likelihood that we would see this experiment outside the DA program because it would be a waste to use it on kids that have no reasonable shot at professional or national team play.
> 
> ...


Very well said. Bio-whatever is overkill for even our DA program. The solution for the handful of good players is let them play up...


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 6, 2018)

LadiesMan217 said:


> Very well said. Bio-whatever is overkill for even our DA program. The solution for the handful of good players is let them play up...


finally.. play up.. the end.


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 6, 2018)

LadiesMan217 said:


> I won't school you in your lack of soccer knowledge. Rather than make you look bad I will let you do a bit of research on those 4 players and you will see the bio bands they were in. They did not play age group soccer.


oh wait this just got interesting folks... so now you're saying Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay & Brazil had bio-banding programs decades ago?


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 6, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> Do some research before you make silly comments, unless you're just fishing for likes. Players change bands as they mature, that's the whole point.


me?  sorry bud, I think you have to do the research.

long story short, US Soccer should worry about actually producing world stars first then worry about the filters

If US Soccer was actually producing world class players that had physical advantages when they were younger, sure bio-banding would make sense.. now give another 1% a chance

Soccer is the sport that has the US scratching its head for decades.  The US has a ton of wealth and resources, better nutrition, better training facilities, better quality of life, and a whole lot of "betters" but no world class soccer players

In the end, that kid who just plays pickup in the street with $2 shoes and a beat up ball somewhere in a country with less wealth and resources will make it further in Soccer.


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Apr 6, 2018)

FlashDrive said:


> oh wait this just got interesting folks... so now you're saying Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay & Brazil had bio-banding programs decades ago?


YES! Where have you been? Ever been to the Biosphere? I took Biology in HS. My trash bags are biodegradable. And my DD now plays Bio-Band! Someday the best players will be bio-banded together and sold at auction like overseas. But actually let's take Neymar... He was brought into to the bio-banded Santos FC as a kid and trained and played with players ranging from 14-19 years old. Bio-banding! Messi was 13 when he went into the bio-banding... Even Pele was bio-banded. Whomever came up with this term needs to be fired... And we are not ready for bio-banding!


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 6, 2018)

LadiesMan217 said:


> YES! Where have you been? Ever been to the Biosphere? I took Biology in HS. My trash bags are biodegradable. And my DD now plays Bio-Band! Someday the best players will be bio-banded together and sold at auction like overseas. But actually let's take Neymar... He was brought into to the bio-banded Santos FC as a kid and trained and played with players ranging from 14-19 years old. Bio-banding! Messi was 13 when he went into the bio-banding... Even Pele was bio-banded. Whomever came up with this term needs to be fired... And we are not ready for bio-banding!


ha! bio-band coolaid

none were bio-banded

played up.. yes.. the end


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 6, 2018)

I think at this point it is important to recognise that bio-banding doesn't just mean the bigger, more mature kids play against older players. It is very important for the smaller, later developers to be in an environment where they can still develop their technical skills. For too long, the US has lacked technical players, usually because they get over-run and struggle in a physical game, simply because they have matured later.

Harry Kane is the newest example of this in England, he was a very late developer and through concepts like this, was able to stay at his club and train with appropriate players until he finally grew to match his team mates.

Lets face it, we have all seen a 14/15 year old kid who has great technical skill, but just isn't quick or strong enough and struggles in the competitive games. Rather than cut him, this allows for those players to remain within a system until they are fully grown.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 6, 2018)

And yes once again, this is a training adaptation, it will not take over the leagues, leagues wont change their systems. Birth year leagues will remain, this is just something for the elite players to be training within the right environment.

There is no need to make a big deal out of this, 99% of us wont even see it officially taking place. But if this helps the US to bring through more players, because they remain in the system for longer, then the MLS has a better chance of fielding more US players and the USMNT will benefit.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 6, 2018)

timbuck said:


> What would have been the really smart thing to do... Roll this out when they rolled out the Age Group changes.  Roll it out as a "pilot" in a few regions or even offer it as a flight in a few tournaments to see how it is accepted and if it provides any developmental benefit for kids.
> I know they are trying this at the Academy level.  I'd like to think that at this level, there truly are the most skilled kids.  And if a kid is really skilled and mature that he is moved up an age bracket (if not permanently, then at least for a game or 2).
> I bet if you took Flight 1, 2 and 3 teams right now and looked at the ages and "bio-band" ages, there's a pretty good chances that the more "mature" kids are in Flight 1 (and are likely born between January and April).
> How do they flight teams in the rest of the world?


I'm sure the academies will offer this as a tournament at the elite level. Yes of course birth month has a huge part to play in it, over half of all academy players in England are born in the first four months of their calendar season. The latest tournament I saw in England was bio banded from 80-85% as a flight and 85-90% (of their potential height), but it all depends on how many players you have.

For everything else in England, flights are just divisions, with promotion and relegations.


----------



## FlashDrive (Apr 6, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> I think at this point it is important to recognise that bio-banding doesn't just mean the bigger, more mature kids play against older players. It is very important for the smaller, later developers to be in an environment where they can still develop their technical skills. For too long, the US has lacked technical players, usually because they get over-run and struggle in a physical game, simply because they have matured later.
> 
> Harry Kane is the newest example of this in England, he was a very late developer and through concepts like this, was able to stay at his club and train with appropriate players until he finally grew to match his team mates.
> 
> Lets face it, we have all seen a 14/15 year old kid who has great technical skill, but just isn't quick or strong enough and struggles in the competitive games. Rather than cut him, this allows for those players to remain within a system until they are fully grown.


all kidding and my sarcasm aside.. the issue in the US is club soccer.  They all focus on making sure they make teams FIRST.  Most have strict playing up policies and don't allow it.  Moving your advanced Flight1 05 to the 04 group means as a club you just weakened the 05 Flight1 team.  Clubs know those advanced 05's will develop quicker in the 04 group, but they will avoid it to the fullest.  They will look the other way and make a million excuses to make sure your advanced 05 stays on the flight1 05 team. Why you ask? well the advanced 05 will bring WINS in the 05 group - that translates to results for the club and obviously that will draw more talent in the seasons to come.

without mentioning club names, just went thru this with one of my kids.. DA offer was made exclusive to her age group and mandatory.  We suggested she should play up instead since she was ahead of the pack.  I should have recorded the excuses that were given and the wall put up on this request, beyond hilarious.  Well, thankfully I don't believe in the US DA system, she'll be playing up elsewhere


----------



## Bananacorner (Apr 6, 2018)

The concern I have with bio-banding is that I'm not certain height is the best predictor of maturity.  Sure, it correlates to maturation, but someone mentioned secondary sexual characteristics and there are many others.  So what about the kids who happen to grow in height and are at 90%, but they grew so fast that they are gawky and their feet are 3 sizes too big and their speed and skill suffers?  This happens very frequently, I see it all the time.  Sally used to have the best skills on the team, but now she is tripping over the ball and even over her own feet.  Oh, and Sally just grew 3 inches in 6 months and her feet are now size 10.  All of those kids would look like complete failures if made to play up and be pushed out of the system before they had a chance to catch up to their height.

I realize no predictor is perfect, so but what about using more than just one variable (height) to determine maturation? 

Although a much better predictor of maturity.  I don't think we are going to x ray growth plates.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Apr 6, 2018)

ItsCalledSoccer said:


> I applaud the US for finally bringing bio-banding to everyone's attention. It's growing rapidly in the UK. To those who haven't heard of it, a calculation is made of a player's potential future height, based on their gender, current age, current height and parents ages and heights. From there, a player is given a % based on how close they are to reaching their peak height velocity. Players are then grouped as such: 80-85%, 85-90% or even closer if the player pool is large.


Wonder how the adopted child who has no information on the birth parents is calculated...I would be very interested because I have only 1 thing to go by for my children who I adopted from 2 different countries and that is the growth charts.  The growth chart's height prediction has been 100% accurate for my 17 year old and my younger daughter who is 11 has always remained in the 85th to 90th percentile for height.  I can only presume the chart prediction of her height being about 5'8" is going to be accurate because I recently had to move her up to a ladies size 9 shoe and her legs are longer than mine and I am 5'6".  Would the clubs believe that or would I have to substantiate that?   I am sure that isn't the only nuance situation.  

In our lawsuit happy country I think US Soccer is asking for big trouble!  I can see it now...Class Action lawsuit against US Soccer and/or soccer clubs for height discrimination.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 6, 2018)

Bananacorner said:


> The concern I have with bio-banding is that I'm not certain height is the best predictor of maturity.  Sure, it correlates to maturation, but someone mentioned secondary sexual characteristics and there are many others.  So what about the kids who happen to grow in height and are at 90%, but they grew so fast that they are gawky and their feet are 3 sizes too big and their speed and skill suffers?  This happens very frequently, I see it all the time.  Sally used to have the best skills on the team, but now she is tripping over the ball and even over her own feet.  Oh, and Sally just grew 3 inches in 6 months and her feet are now size 10.  All of those kids would look like complete failures if made to play up and be pushed out of the system before they had a chance to catch up to their height.
> 
> I realize no predictor is perfect, so but what about using more than just one variable (height) to determine maturation?
> 
> Although a much better predictor of maturity.  I don't think we are going to x ray growth plates.


I understand where you are coming from, I'm sure there have been cases of this in the system. But once again, its not something where Sally would be training every week with these 90% players and would lose all her confidence. She would still be training within her own team and as part of coaching those age groups, coaches should be able to identify when someone is going through a growth spurt, losing their coordination and recognise how to deal with this and maintain confidence levels within that player.

Ultimately yes, there is no perfect way to put everyone in the exact category they should be in, and it is good to have spells where you are the dominant player in a group and also the weakest player in the group, it develops the player socially and psychologically which helps later in life. My biggest season of development as a player was when I was thrown into the first team (I was playing reserves) and I was well below the standard of everyone else, but you stick at it and improve. I definitely needed a season of that as a young player.

From the research I found on this topic, the average team at teenage years has up to 15% difference of their maturity levels, so at those elite levels, if we can reduce that gap to 5%, not all the time, but enough to maintain confidence in the players and keep players within a system while they grow, then it's all positive in my opinion.


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 6, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> Wonder how the adopted child who has no information on the birth parents is calculated...I would be very interested because I have only 1 thing to go by for my children who I adopted from 2 different countries and that is the growth charts.  The growth chart's height prediction has been 100% accurate for my 17 year old and my younger daughter who is 11 has always remained in the 85th to 90th percentile for height.  I can only presume the chart prediction of her height being about 5'8" is going to be accurate because I recently had to move her up to a ladies size 9 shoe and her legs are longer than mine and I am 5'6".  Would the clubs believe that or would I have to substantiate that?   I am sure that isn't the only nuance situation.
> 
> In our lawsuit happy country I think US Soccer is asking for big trouble!  I can see it now...Class Action lawsuit against US Soccer and/or soccer clubs for height discrimination.


Good question, I have no idea how they would calculate it without all of the information required. Again, I imagine they will only use this at the top level so I cant see it bringing up a lot of cases like this. Yes it would be pure chaos if all SCDSL/CSL style leagues started introducing this, but regular leagues around the world don't and I'm sure US leagues wont either. No one permanently trains within bio-banded teams anywhere in the world, as much as I know.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

All,

Taking a step back, in England (a few years ago), the Academy system noticed they had a problem.  That problem was that teams (_note, the article is based on the school year, not calendar year_) had only 14% of kids born in the bottom 1/3 of the year:



> _A few years ago some at the Football Association and Premier League began wondering whether this was misguided. A study discovered 57 per cent of boys aged nine-to-16 in Premier League academies were born in the first third of the school year, but only 14 per cent in the last third. In society as a whole births are evenly spread through the year._
> 
> One of the clubs most intrigued was Southampton. The birth dates of their academy players reflected the relative-age effect but, says  Alek Gross, the club’s head of sport science: “When we looked at senior England squads and British-born Premier League players there was an even spread.” Saints realised the players making the grade did not reflect the birth-date profile of those in their academy system. “We were potentially recruiting players, and retaining them in the academy, based on physical presence,” said Gross. (Independent Article)


Fast forward to 2018.  The USSF also appreciates that clubs in the DA have a tendency to build teams and admit kids to their programs based on physical proneness and not necessarily skill.  This concept of bio-banding gives those DOCs a new tool and emphasis to not ignore the potentially "physically late bloomers."  At best it may effect just a few kids (2-4) on each team that retain a roster spot and stay in the DA system.

_Hate reading these little black squiggly lines called words_?  Gotcha, here is a video on the subject from ACD Bournemouth:





Here is a more scientific presentation:


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> *Bio-Banding Supplements Academy Training and its not a Replacement*
> 
> If we look at the English clubs that are experimenting with Bio-Banding, it has been reserved for the Academy system (top 1% of youth players) and is used purely for tournaments, simply a supplemental addition to the existing academy teams.  So there is little likelihood that we would see this experiment outside the DA program because it would be a waste to use it on kids that have no reasonable shot at professional or national team play.
> 
> ...


I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN .  I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments.  I retract my criticisms.  Except one.  US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."  

As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values).  I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it were so.  Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> *Soccer In the US Is Not a legitimate Revenue Sport (yet) that eliminate pay to play at the higher levels.*


One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .

US Soccer's most recent audited financial statements (2016) indicate that the organization has 93 million in "undesignated" investments under the assets column.  I'm not a finance guy so I don't know what exactly that means, but I do know what assets are, what investments are and the definition of "undesignated."  What I take away from that is that US Soccer is sitting on a pile of money. 

How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system?  How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer?  To set something up that would bring the beautiful game to everyone regardless of economic status and collegiate ambition? To set up a system of broadening the talent pool of US Soccer players that could utilize Bio-Banding and emphasize technical development and long-term thinking over trophies, rankings, and scholarship offers for 16 year olds?  This isn't a rhetorical question.  I really want to know.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN .  I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments.  I retract my criticisms.  Except one.  US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."
> 
> As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values).  I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it were so.  Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.


Thank you for the compliment.  To your point regarding pay-to-play, from my perspective there are two things the USSF can realistically do today that would impact elite talent identification and development:

1. Take the lead on implementing a system for solidarity and training fee payments (as discussed above).

2.  Recognize the player development (men's side) in the US is decades (and will remain decades) behind the other soccer playing nations (Klinsmann did).  The USSF needs to go to FIFA and demand additional exceptions to Article 19.  We need pave a path to get our legitimate elite youth players into the European and Latin American systems as soon as possible.

3. Demand two changes at the MLS level to make it a marketable league.  Eliminate the restrictions on foreign players and eliminate incentives to hold back MLS players from "real leagues" around the world.  _Note that I didn't mention relegation and promotion because that is akin to peeking up Wonder Woman's skirt while pissing in the wind._


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .
> 
> US Soccer's most recent audited financial statements (2016) indicate that the organization has 93 million in "undesignated" investments under the assets column.  I'm not a finance guy so I don't know what exactly that means, but I do know what assets are, what investments are and the definition of "undesignated."  What I take away from that is that US Soccer is sitting on a pile of money.
> 
> How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system?  How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer?  To set something up that would bring the beautiful game to everyone regardless of economic status and collegiate ambition? To set up a system of broadening the talent pool of US Soccer players that could utilize Bio-Banding and emphasize technical development and long-term thinking over trophies, rankings, and scholarship offers for 16 year olds?  This isn't a rhetorical question.  I really want to know.


I'll answer that, but so I'm giving you good numbers, do you want just men or men and women?  Is the parameter a take over of the existing DA system or are we scaling it down or increasing its size?


----------



## El Clasico (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .
> 
> How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system?  How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer?  .


1 Billion ++


----------



## El Clasico (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> 1. Take the lead on implementing a system for solidarity and training fee payments (as discussed above).
> 
> 2.  Recognize the player development (men's side) in the US is decades (and will remain decades) behind the other soccer playing nations (Klinsmann did).  The USSF needs to go to FIFA and demand additional exceptions to Article 19.  We need pave a path to get our legitimate elite youth players into the European and Latin American systems as soon as possible.
> 
> 3. Demand two changes at the MLS level to make it a marketable league.  Eliminate the restrictions on foreign players and eliminate incentives to hold back MLS players from "real leagues" around the world._._


I knew eventually we would have to agree on something.


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> I'll answer that, but so I'm giving you good numbers, do you want just men or men and women?  Is the parameter a take over of the existing DA system or are we scaling it down or increasing its size?


I'm thinking of both men and women.  I was thinking of a true "blank page" re-think of youth soccer in general.  To me, DA is a compromise where US Soccer is trying to do what I expressed in an earlier comment: feeding solutions (various mandates about age grouping, training time vs game time, development initiatives) into a broken machine.  In other words, these are just the same DoC's, same coaches, clubs, same economic system as before, same values, now just dancing to USSF's drum.  And not really getting any lasting positive traction from it.  So, I would say for the purposes of setting up a straw-man proposal, just take over the existing system, burn it down, start from scratch.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

El Clasico said:


> I knew eventually we would have to agree on something.


  We agree? 

Let me add "_There are three types of people in this world, those that can count and those that can't._"  I apparently fall into the later category based on the opening paragraph.


----------



## Lambchop (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN .  I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments.  I retract my criticisms.  Except one.  US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."
> 
> As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values).  I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it wee so.  Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.


Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor !  Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming,  ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field,  rugby, what else, I know I am missing some.  Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse!  No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

Lambchop said:


> Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor !  Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming,  ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field,  rugby, what else, I know I am missing some.  Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse!  No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!


Ah, hello there Hyperbolic Fallacy, my old friend.  Glad you could come out to play.  Wonder when Moving the Goalposts, Red Herring, and Nirvana Fallacy will show up...


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

Lambchop said:


> Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor !  Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming,  ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field,  rugby, what else, I know I am missing some.  Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse!  No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!


FYI, mocking aside, I don't expect it for free.  But the system that reigns now is arguably not working in the best interests of the sport and US Soccer needs to reach beyond the suburbs if it is to transform soccer in the US and fulfill it's mission of making the US into a soccer power.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 6, 2018)

Since the topic has shifted a bit to money and funding.
Did anyone see this Deal announced?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2018/03/31/1-4b-us-soccer-deal-with-statsports-has-potential-to-monitor-the-performance-of-4-million-players/amp/

US Soccer signed multi year with for a little over $1 billion to outfit DA players with smart bras with fitness tracking technology. 
$200 million per year.  But I still gotta pay $550 for a “D” license.


----------



## 46n2 (Apr 6, 2018)

this thread...


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I'm thinking of both men and women.  I was thinking of a true "blank page" re-think of youth soccer in general.  To me, DA is a compromise where US Soccer is trying to do what I expressed in an earlier comment: feeding solutions (various mandates about age grouping, training time vs game time, development initiatives) into a broken machine.  In other words, these are just the same DoC's, same coaches, clubs, same economic system as before, same values, now just dancing to USSF's drum.  And not really getting any lasting positive traction from it.  So, I would say for the purposes of setting up a straw-man proposal, just take over the existing system, burn it down, start from scratch.


Ok, so let's say the DA takes over the existing DA teams from all the clubs on the men's and woman's side as it currently exists.  The DA is now responsible for:

Paying Admins (Academy Directors and Technical Directors across nation at each club) (about $13.2 M)
Paying Coaches ($43.8M)
Training Fields ($4.3M)
Games and Referees ($2.4M)
Travel (U15+) ($15.3M)
Residential Education (MLS teams only) ($20.1M)
This would conservatively add about $99.3M in expenses to the USSF budget assuming it took over the existing DA teams and players.  Here is my DA-TakeOver spreadsheet and assumptions.  There would likely be around $25M to $30M in takeover costs, but let's ignore those.

It currently receives right around $4M in Youth membership fees according to its 2016 Audited Financials.

The USSF's net assets as of year end 2017 are $148M (Form 990)

Taking over the existing DA system would require the USSF add an additional $100M in revenue or basically double its existing revenue per year to support the DA program because it would be bankrupt by year 2, if not earlier.

Since the USSF cannot add more dollars through existing broadcast rights until 2022, its stuck.  

Speaking of broadcast rights, the USSF receives about $30M per year as part of the joint MLS/USSF Sum deal, the MLS receives about $60M.  Its likely a little undervalued, but its guaranteed and the USSF comes out a winner especially with the failure of the men's team to make the World Cup.

To put this into perspective, the domestic broadcast rights that the Premiere league receives is $1.5 Billion per year v. $60 Million per year for the MLS.  Heck, NBC pays nearly $167M per year to broadcast the Premiere league in the US market.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

timbuck said:


> Since the topic has shifted a bit to money and funding.
> Did anyone see this Deal announced?
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2018/03/31/1-4b-us-soccer-deal-with-statsports-has-potential-to-monitor-the-performance-of-4-million-players/amp/
> 
> ...


@timbuck, if you read the article, US Soccer paid "zilch" for the technology and STATSports is outfitting the DA players for free, with the hopes that the rest of the 4M registered soccer players across the US will say "whoaaaa I need that, here is my $100."  Again, the USSF isn't paying a dime for this technology.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 6, 2018)

Ahhh-  I didn’t read the post script.  A+ for you in reading comprehension!!!!


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> Ok, so let's say the DA takes over the existing DA teams from all the clubs on the men's and woman's side as it currently exists.  The DA is now responsible for:
> 
> Paying Admins (Academy Directors and Technical Directors across nation at each club) (about $13.2 M)
> Paying Coaches ($43.8M)
> ...


Interesting stuff.  Given the sheer numbers involved, it would be great to see some combination of the three suggestions you listed earlier and *a pilot program utilizing some of that unused funding in some of the larger cities that would be targeted at the younger age groups and keep player costs at a minimum to broaden the footprint of the game and depth of talent in the pipeline.*  A larger scale takeover as imagined above would have to wait on the revenue to line up. Bottom line, it seems most of the things I don't like about youth soccer and the top level players (or lack of) the US produces as a result of that system will remain in place for a long time to come.  

Back to the point of this thread, this kind of reinforces for me that bio-banding is a good solution for a problem that much better soccer countries than the US have the luxury of facing.  Not that it can't be tried and found helpful, but US soccer issues are much deeper.


----------



## Lambchop (Apr 6, 2018)

timbuck said:


> Since the topic has shifted a bit to money and funding.
> Did anyone see this Deal announced?
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2018/03/31/1-4b-us-soccer-deal-with-statsports-has-potential-to-monitor-the-performance-of-4-million-players/amp/
> 
> ...


Read the entire article!


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Interesting stuff.  Given the sheer numbers involved, it would be great to see some combination of the three suggestions you listed earlier and *a pilot program utilizing some of that unused funding in some of the larger cities that would be targeted at the younger age groups and keep player costs at a minimum to broaden the footprint of the game and depth of talent in the pipeline.*  A larger scale takeover as imagined above would have to wait on the revenue to line up. Bottom line, it seems most of the things I don't like about youth soccer and the top level players (or lack of) the US produces as a result of that system will remain in place for a long time to come.
> 
> Back to the point of this thread, this kind of reinforces for me that bio-banding is a good solution for a problem that much better soccer countries than the US have the luxury of facing.  Not that it can't be tried and found helpful, but US soccer issues are much deeper.


If I was President of the USSF, here is what I would do:

Implement and support Solidarity and Training Fee tracking and payments, which will create incentives for the DA clubs to identify and scholarship talent.
Leave the DA "club" system alone because having solidarity and training fee payments gives it some new revenue sources.  Let's see what effect that might have.
Get all MLS DA clubs to become fully funded residential (eliminating pay-2-play at this level).
Go after FIFA's article 19 to allow an exception by guaranteeing USSF support.  Article 19 exists to prevent trafficking of minors and the negative consequences that exist when clubs terminate minor's agreements/training.  Eliminate the negative consequence through national support/guarantees.
Reform the National Team youth program as follows:
A. Recognize that the US is 325M people, whereas England 66M.  We can fit 5 Englands (population wise in the US).   We create 5 Youth National Team Regions, each with a Residential Training Center and full roster of coaches and trainers (U15, U16, U17, U18/19).  Regional DA programs feed into the Regional National Team "elite" training.  Cost would be about $4M to $5M for each ($20M-25M).
B. The youth in these programs (H.S. Age), would represent roughly the top 125 players in each age group (500 players).
C. This program would eventually be funded through changes to Article 19 and Solidarity/Training fee payments to the extent the youth turn pro.
This would create the following player path:
1 National Team per age group for international competitions.
5 Regional National Teams per age group for residential training (500), these kids would also become likely acquisition targets by European and Latin American professional academies. 
20 DA-1 Residential MLS teams for residential training (1,400 players)
150 to 90ish (U12-U19) DA-2 Non-Residential teams for regional training (60,000 players)
Competitive Leagues/Clubs (4,000,000 players)
Recreational (20,000,000 players)


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

timbuck said:


> ... US Soccer signed multi year [deal] ... But I still gotta pay $550 for a “D” license.


Just for the record, US Soccer only administers the A and B licenses.  State Associations administer the C, D and E (now Grassroot), using US Soccer curriculum.  On the licensing front in 2017, US Soccer reported:

$4.662 M in expenses arising out of the Coaching Programs and Training.
$2.857 M in revenue attributed to the programs
Net Loss of $1.805 M for coaching programs and training.

Cal South (who got most of your $550) typically averages about a net $70k loss with regard to the coaching education program (expenses v. revenue).

Aside from the fact that only a small portion of your $550 went to US Soccer, are you arguing that you should pay more so neither Cal South nor US Soccer are taking loses on the coaching programs?


----------



## Mystery Train (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> If I was President of the USSF, here is what I would do:
> 
> Implement and support Solidarity and Training Fee tracking and payments, which will create incentives for the DA clubs to identify and scholarship talent.
> Leave the DA "club" system alone because having solidarity and training fee payments gives it some new revenue sources.  Let's see what effect that might have.
> ...


Impressive.  I like your thinking on the 5 regional YNT and the fully funded MLS DA's.  Very smart way to broaden the exposure to more players, put more eyes on the pool and decrease the odds of a diamond slipping through the cracks.  I'd vote for this.  You shoulda thrown your hat into the ring when Sunil stepped down.  Missed opportunity, bro.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> Just for the record, US Soccer only administers the A and B licenses.  State Associations administer the C, D and E (now Grassroot), using US Soccer curriculum.  On the licensing front in 2017, US Soccer reported:
> 
> $4.662 M in expenses arising out of the Coaching Programs and Training.
> $2.857 M in revenue attributed to the programs
> ...


True.  Cal South Adminiaters c and d license.  From a small sample that I’ve looked at, CalSouth is considerably more expensive than many other states.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Impressive.  I like your thinking on the 5 regional YNT and the fully funded MLS DA's.  Very smart way to broaden the exposure to more players, put more eyes on the pool and decrease the odds of a diamond slipping through the cracks.  I'd vote for this.  You shoulda thrown your hat into the ring when Sunil stepped down.  Missed opportunity, bro.


I would have never made it because my platform is opposed by both the Players Council and the MLS/SUM, which represent a controlling interest of the votes.

By the way, the real A-Holes in this whole solidarity/training fee issue are the players who vehemently oppose it, believing it will reduce potential compensation to them.  They have threatened to go after youth soccer organizations if US Soccer begins to administer it.


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 6, 2018)

timbuck said:


> True.  Cal South Adminiaters c and d license.  From a small sample that I’ve looked at, CalSouth is considerably more expensive than many other states.


Not that it much matters, but according to the US Soccer Coaching Education website you and MWN are both wrong on this... A, B and C are all US Soccer run. Cal South does just the D and grass roots (formerly e). Their website is very clear on this. Are the other "stats" posted more accurate as it was interesting reading but now I'm not so sure...


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 6, 2018)

futboldad1 said:


> Not that it much matters, but according to the US Soccer Coaching Education website you and MWN are both wrong on this... A, B and C are all US Soccer run. Cal South does just the D and grass roots (formerly e). Their website is very clear on this. Are the other "stats" posted more accurate as it was interesting reading but now I'm not so sure...


For the record you're likely more in the know than me...I'm a lowly E-holding parent from my AYSO coaching days and that license no longer exists ....I just looked at the website as I remember back when I took mine the E and D were the only ones offered...but I even balked at the D so there's that


----------



## smellycleats (Apr 6, 2018)

jayjay said:


> Not such a novel idea...
> https://www.premierleague.com/news/58833
> 
> An objective test is a bone age xray will tell you where your child is at maturation-wise based on how growth plates.


This whole thing is weird.


----------



## MWN (Apr 6, 2018)

futboldad1 said:


> Not that it much matters, but according to the US Soccer Coaching Education website you and MWN are both wrong on this... A, B and C are all US Soccer run. Cal South does just the D and grass roots (formerly e). Their website is very clear on this. Are the other "stats" posted more accurate as it was interesting reading but now I'm not so sure...


I can't believe somebody is questioning me.  Its shocking and very distrurbing.  

[googling, googling, rechecking, googling, rechecking ... close browser]

No.  A & B are administered by US Soccer.  C, D and E (now Grass Roots) are administered by Cal South (effective a few years ago).

Evidence:

US Soccer's 2017 990 - See page 2 of PDF (page 3, Section 4c), which states that US Soccer does A & B, States Associations do C-E, and F is online.

US Soccer Digital Coaching Website - https://dcc.ussoccer.com/courses/available/16/details/1546 - If you look at the "C" course (Dec. 15-22) Stephen Hoffman (Cal South) is the Instructor.  Looking at the B course, Jan 7, 2018, *GIANNA MILARO* of US Soccer is the instructor.
Now, I do not doubt that you saw something on a website that is inconsistent with US Soccer's representations to the IRS and the current coaching courses that have Cal South personnel teaching/instructing the C-E/Grassroots courses.  

I would love to see a link.


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> I can't believe somebody is questioning me.  Its shocking and very distrurbing.
> 
> [googling, googling, rechecking, googling, rechecking ... close browser]
> 
> ...


This is some most awesome researching, and it seems I am in over my head!

Link is this one from the current us soccer site https://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/licenses/national-d

Not an impressive link but includes this is the final paragraph  "As demonstrated in the past, member organizations will be empowered to organize and host the in-person grassroots courses and the updated D course on behalf of U.S. Soccer." A-B-C omitted from this.

From what I can gather the C did indeed used to be conducted by Calsouth when it was just a 9 day course but since it spread out over several months (from 2017 onwards according to their website) that has changed. This would maybe be supported by the IRS document link which pertains to 2016, but would undermined by your other link which does indicate it's regional....If it were important I'd have a headache!

Im probably wrong...Id never heard of the dcc until you linked to it! Thank the lord my dad "coaching qualifications" finished at my "e"... I'd be too confused to go any further even if I could muster paying for it!


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 6, 2018)

On topic...I'm not for this latest ussf intervention of bio-banding.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Apr 7, 2018)

futboldad1 said:


> This is some most awesome researching, and it seems I am in over my head!
> 
> Link is this one from the current us soccer site https://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/licenses/national-d
> 
> ...


Why not beat a dead horse and continue off topic on a subject I can care less about I asked myself....

Here is the link to the current 2018 C License training and in fact Steve Hoffman is the instructor this weekend.  My daughter volunteered for it and she was informed she was getting a gift from Cal South for doing it.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/01/12/16/56/20180112-news-us-soccer-coaching-education-announces-2018-c-course-schedule-dates


----------



## MWN (Apr 7, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> Why not beat a dead horse and continue off topic I asked myself....
> 
> Here is the link to the current 2018 C License training and in fact Steve Hoffman is the instructor this weekend.  My daughter volunteered for it and she was informed she was getting a gift from Cal South for doing it.
> 
> https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/01/12/16/56/20180112-news-us-soccer-coaching-education-announces-2018-c-course-schedule-dates


Hoffman aka Hoffy is the CalSouth DOC  for ODP and generally the top dog Coach for CalSouth.

I don't know his position on bio banding


----------



## Keepermom2 (Apr 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> Hoffman aka Hoffy is the CalSouth DOC  for ODP and generally the top dog Coach for CalSouth.
> 
> I don't know his position on bio banding


I learn something new all of the time on this board.


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> Hoffman aka Hoffy is the CalSouth DOC  for ODP and generally the top dog Coach for CalSouth.
> 
> I don't know his position on bio banding


Can you find out? It would round things off nicely.


----------



## jayjay (Apr 7, 2018)

smellycleats said:


> This whole thing is weird.


Not a medical professional, I take it?


----------



## ray8 (Apr 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> If I was President of the USSF, here is what I would do:


"Implement and support Solidarity and Training Fee tracking and payments..."
That would involve the buying and selling of minors. Our laws differ in this regard from certain European countries.

"Leave the DA "club" system alone..."
The DA club system is a corrupt sham. A business system that at its nature is designed to develop pocketbooks.

"Get all MLS DA clubs to become fully funded residential..."
All the MLS clubs I see are window dressing. Save for maybe Dallas there is little chance in hell these clubs will produce real soccer players. Sending a child to spend his adolescence at Galaxy, for example, is borderline child abuse.
Most people I've spoken to who know insist that the player remain at home with his family at all costs. In rare cases, like Real Madrid's players who come from all over Spain, it isn't possible. 

"Go after FIFA's article 19.."
That would be very difficult to pull off. FIFA is a stubborn bunch.
And all of the US players who I've seen abroad paid their way into it. There is no shortage of players in say, Spain, yet I keep hearing of Spanish scouts here. Those are salesmen.

"Reform the National Team youth program"
Great idea.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 7, 2018)

ray8 said:


> "Implement and support Solidarity and Training Fee tracking and payments..."
> That would involve the buying and selling of minors. Our laws differ in this regard from certain European countries.
> 
> "Leave the DA "club" system alone..."
> ...


That is so funny. The Galaxy line is classic.


----------



## MWN (Apr 7, 2018)

ray8 said:


> "Implement and support Solidarity and Training Fee tracking and payments..."
> That would involve the buying and selling of minors. Our laws differ in this regard from certain European countries.
> 
> "Leave the DA "club" system alone..."
> The DA club system is a corrupt sham. A business system that at its nature is designed to develop pocketbooks.


Disagree.  Solidarity and training fees are paid by one club to another clubs pursuant to a schedule.  There is nothing in the US legal system that prevents the USSF from setting up a system that lets these payments be made or collected.  Moreover, minors can enter into binding agreements (provided their guardians approve) and be part of "collective bargaining agreements" in the US (see, actors, etc.).  If the NGB (National Governing Body) aka US Soccer elected to enforce payments as part of the economy of soccer in the US, it would most likely survive any challenges.  As somebody that practiced labor law for over 17 years, I'm not aware of any prohibition that cannot be properly addressed and circumvented.

See, https://medium.com/@terryblaw/would-enforcing-training-compensation-and-solidarity-really-violate-us-law-2d9c37a48533
and http://lawofsport.blogspot.com/2016/06/training-compensation-and-solidarity-in.html

Also note, the challenges to solidarity and training fees have been grounded on a potential Anti-Trust violation and not labor law violations.  The anti-trust claims is grounded on a stipulated consent decree and there has not been a contested judicial decision on the issue.

As its structured right now, I agree that the DA system has little upside and those clubs that operate a DA program are doing it purely as a marketing ploy to get money out of the parents of the lower levels.  Its a carrot.


----------



## smellycleats (Apr 8, 2018)

jayjay said:


> Not a medical professional, I take it?


Actually I am. I just don’t see this system a a feasible way to group players.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 8, 2018)

smellycleats said:


> Actually I am. I just don’t see this system a a feasible way to group players.


I guess it is a struggle trying to figure it out...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/wnmgab/how-the-premier-league-is-rethinking-age-in-youth-development


----------



## smellycleats (Apr 8, 2018)

xav10 said:


> I guess it is a struggle trying to figure it out...
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/sports.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/wnmgab/how-the-premier-league-is-rethinking-age-in-youth-development


 Thank you for the article. It clarified some things for me and it’s an interesting read. You don’t have to be a snide jerk about it


----------



## xav10 (Apr 8, 2018)

smellycleats said:


> Thank you for the article. It clarified some things for me and it’s an interesting read. You don’t have to be a snide jerk about it


I think you misunderstood me. You mentioned how difficult it could be to implement and I was actually agreeing with you. The article implies, to me,  that it may not be feasible across the board.


----------



## smellycleats (Apr 8, 2018)

xav10 said:


> I think you misunderstood me. You mentioned how difficult it could be to implement and I was actually agreeing with you. The article implies, to me,  that it may not be feasible across the board.


Sorry to jump to that conclusion. I actually thought you were the same poster that said “so I guess you’re not a medical professionsl...” My apologies.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Apr 9, 2018)

smellycleats said:


> Thank you for the article. It clarified some things for me and it’s an interesting read. You don’t have to be a snide jerk about it


That's what she iz best at.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 9, 2018)

smellycleats said:


> Sorry to jump to that conclusion. I actually thought you were the same poster that said “so I guess you’re not a medical professionsl...” My apologies.


NP.  I'm only a snide jerk to the poster beneath you, who calls himself Sheriff Joe, if you can believe it.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Apr 9, 2018)

Getting back to the original topic, not yet sold on the idea of bio-banding.  Sure, it takes out the physicality aspect...but you are then swinging the pendulum to the other extreme where the players that are 3 years older (but same physicality) are going to have a huge technical advantage over players 3 years younger.  

Also, a player going through puberty could be shooting through their growth percentages in a matter of a year...are you going to be giving the kids a bone density x-ray every month?  I think USSF may like the idea that they're forward thinking...but there are some realistic/logistical challenges here that they'll need to consider.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 9, 2018)

In theory-  it is a really good idea.  And in European Academy set ups-  it probably makes sense if a kid is on a pro-track but is on the smaller side. And has the potential to get better by playing with kids of similar size. 
But-  do we really trust coaches in the US to do this “for the player”?  We’ve all seen many teams sand bag tournaments and league play. Bring players from ECNL teams to play in a flight 2 game.


----------



## MWN (Apr 9, 2018)

Again, bio-banding is purely a US Soccer Development Academy "training" and "tournament" tool to help coaches better evaluate talent based on maturity and biological age and not by their chronological age.  Its only for the elite talent and has no place at the lower levels, as it would be a waste time/effort/money because those kids have no hope of being invited to a National Team camp.  Discussions of "sand bagging" and any any team that plays in a league other than the DA are irrelevant.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 9, 2018)

MWN said:


> Again, bio-banding is purely a US Soccer Development Academy "training" and "tournament" tool to help coaches better evaluate talent based on maturity and biological age and not by their chronological age.  Its only for the elite talent and has no place at the lower levels, as it would be a waste time/effort/money because those kids have no hope of being invited to a National Team camp.  Discussions of "sand bagging" and any any team that plays in a league other than the DA are irrelevant.


You don’t think a DA coach would try to game the system somehow?


----------



## Chalklines (Apr 9, 2018)

Looks like this year's top NBA prospect is coming from Europe now too.....

Whats wrong with our training methods? How come this country's having such a hard time producing in house stars? 

My only guess is distractions. We have too much to choose from in the states and players lose focus.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 9, 2018)

Chalklines said:


> Looks like this year's top NBA prospect is coming from Europe now too.....
> 
> Whats wrong with our training methods? How come this country's having such a hard time producing in house stars?
> 
> My only guess is distractions. We have too much to choose from in the states and players lose focus.


Excellent question. Seems like it's getting to the point where we can't blame "we're not a soccer country," if it's happening in basketball.


----------



## MWN (Apr 9, 2018)

timbuck said:


> You don’t think a DA coach would try to game the system somehow?


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.


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Apr 9, 2018)

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 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 and talked to consistently about correct training and their coaches are counseled to train their players correctly.


I like your posts. This is exactly one of the main premises of DA.


----------



## futboldad1 (Apr 9, 2018)

Good in theory, but with GDA being less than one year old will be interesting to see if it works out. Hopefully it does but consumers (that's you, parents of the 99% non-unicorns, this is a busine$$ remember) should remain skeptical until then. 

I have to add that's it's majorly flawed to have # of invitees to the National Training camps as a barometer of success - as shown on the boys side the politics massively enhance chances of a call up and there's financial reason for US soccer to do so: "Look how good our DA program is, everyone invited plays DA....no no don't pay any attention to the Spanish C teams beating our A teams 10-zero, we're about development not results...."


----------



## MWN (Apr 9, 2018)

futboldad1 said:


> Good in theory, but with GDA being less than one year old will be interesting to see if it works out. Hopefully it does but consumers (that's you, parents of the 99% non-unicorns, this is a busine$$ remember) should remain skeptical until then.
> 
> I have to add that's it's majorly flawed to have # of invitees to the National Training camps as a barometer of success - as shown on the boys side the politics massively enhance chances of a call up and there's financial reason for US soccer to do so: "Look how good our DA program is, everyone invited plays DA....no no don't pay any attention to the Spanish C teams beating our A teams 10-zero, we're about development not results...."


The premise of your post has a flaw, which is the USSF's mission appears to be misunderstood.  Taking a step back:

The USSF is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization recognized by the US Olympic Committee as the "national governing body" (NGB) for the sport of soccer in the US.  As the NGB for soccer it is limited in what it can/cannot do and the constituency of its board.  Because the USSF is a "non-profit" it cannot engage in "for-profit" activities that would generate "unrelated business income" without invalidating its status as a non-profit.  The relevance of the foregoing, is that the USSF's hands are tied on many activities that would be perceived as engaging in a "for profit" operation, which is why the USSF's hands are also tied when it comes to the MLS, SUM and the other for-profit "professional" leagues. 

To the extent you believe "...there's financial reason for US soccer to do so...." with regard to call-ups, the reality is much different.  There is no "financial" incentive for US Soccer to call any players to the youth National teams.  While "politics" may have a role for a few select athletes, the sole motivation of the US Youth National teams is national pride and to raise the profile of US Soccer to increase the value of the brand.   To this end, US Soccer's youth national teams have the singular goal of playing in the following global tournaments (assuming they get out of CONCACAF):

2019 U17 World Cup (Peru) - Prize Money = $0.00
2019 U20 World Cup (Poland) - Prize Money = $0.00

As far as financial benefit for operating the DA, the USSF receives $50 for every DA player registered with the USSF and $50 for every coach registered in the DA.  There are about 17,000 DA players registered between boys and girls in the US ... so $850k.  The USSF receives nothing but expenses as a result of operating the DA.  The only financial incentive would be to grow the DA base by adding coaches and players, thereby getting somewhere around $1,250 for every 25 player team added.  The total amount received by the USSF in "youth" membership fees last year was roughly $4M of which the DA was about 20%.  See, also, US Development Academy Report.

I just don't understand why many of you believe the USSF is money motivated, when all of its programs (except the US National Team) are financial losses.  Can somebody explain the thought process here.


----------



## El Clasico (Apr 9, 2018)

ATRTDT said:


> 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.


MOST?? Is this new? This was not my experience.  I believe the Scandinavian countries, and as of last year, Germany, don't charge undergraduate tuition. Other than that, please share more details since Scandinavia isn't known as a hot bed of soccer development. Germany? Now that is news.


----------



## ray8 (Apr 9, 2018)

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.


Thanks for the links to the Solidarity articles. Interesting read.
However, it appears you've been wildly mislead as to DA's true nature. They do keep tables. They're just not public. They do not go from club to club evaluating their style of play. It's all about the wins. If you don't win you play teams that don't win at showcase. 
Not sure what you mean by a club being competitive yet not winning, but DA clubs are no different in regard to the need for wins to attract players.
It's true you will see a more forward style of play at non-DA club games. Keep in mind, though, that DA is the new tier 1 club soccer, nothing more save for a patch. You could expect to see a more pleasing style of play because the players have a more talent, intelligence, etc. Same as before.


----------



## El Clasico (Apr 9, 2018)

ATRTDT said:


> All sports. Not just soccer


I don't understand your response??  I was referring to your statement that college is free in Europe.


----------



## watfly (Apr 9, 2018)

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.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 9, 2018)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 10, 2018)

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.


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.


----------



## focomoso (Apr 10, 2018)

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.


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 (Apr 10, 2018)

ray8 said:


> Thanks for the links to the Solidarity articles. Interesting read.
> They do not go from club to club evaluating their style of play.


This is false. At least in my personal experience.


----------



## mirage (Apr 10, 2018)

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.)


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......


----------



## MWN (Apr 10, 2018)

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.)


Which is why US Soccer implemented Nike Project40, now Generation Adidas.


----------



## xav10 (Apr 10, 2018)

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.)


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.


----------



## Vin (Apr 12, 2018)

*How USA could win the World Cup with an Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain assist*

*https://amp.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/apr/10/james-bunce-bio-banding-initiative?CMP=share_btn_fb&__twitter_impression=true*


----------



## younothat (Apr 20, 2018)

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.


----------



## timbuck (Apr 20, 2018)

They should have just said "In DA, we will allow certain players to play down an age group if the DOC feels it is necessary."


----------



## ItsCalledSoccer (Apr 20, 2018)

timbuck said:


> They should have just said "In DA, we will allow certain players to play down an age group if the DOC feels it is necessary."


Yes this would have been a lot easier.


----------



## Real Deal (Apr 20, 2018)

timbuck said:


> They should have just said "In DA, we will allow certain players to play down an age group if the DOC feels it is necessary."


Yes, and "playing down" would just be for the kids they want to get rid of-- because most would surely quit the sport.


----------

