# Anyone knows if U16/17 will split next year?



## Footballero (Aug 31, 2018)

I heard rumors a couple months ago that they might do it, but haven’t heard a thing since. Anyone has info on that?


----------



## jpeter (Aug 31, 2018)

Footballero said:


> I heard rumors a couple months ago that they might do it, but haven’t heard a thing since. Anyone has info on that?


Should know for sure later fall when the apps come out but for now my guess is things will stay the same with the combined age groups for the boys.

LAFC & Galaxy are planning to field combined team that season according to the people we've talked with at the friendlies but only time will tell.


----------



## MWN (Sep 2, 2018)

It makes zero sense from the US Soccer stand point.  The pyramid exits to weed out that kids that can't play up.


----------



## Kante (Sep 3, 2018)

Splitting 16/17  would give the boys with birthdays in the last half of the year, and the late developers, a chance to catch up, and compete on a physically even playing field. At >17, all the boys are very close to whatever height they're going to be, but at 16 there's a number of boys who are still growing.


----------



## full90 (Sep 3, 2018)

MWN said:


> It makes zero sense from the US Soccer stand point.  The pyramid exits to weed out that kids that can't play up.



Yep. And they’re wrong.


----------



## SBFDad (Sep 3, 2018)

MWN said:


> It makes zero sense from the US Soccer stand point.  The pyramid exits to weed out that kids that can't play up.


By that logic, why not combine year groups further? U14/15? U12/13? There is so much happening on and off of the field with 14-17 year old boys who will make up the U16/17 ranks over the years...new demands of high school academics, girls, accelerated puberty, slow growers, uneven and erratic mental development.

To suggest that the U16s aren’t worthy of selection or playing time because they “can’t play up” is short-sided. And who’s to say what kids aren’t really capable of playing up? Do you have that much faith in all of the directors and coaches that operate in the DA sphere to get this part right? How many of those coaches are really focused on true development of players vs. winning with more physically and mentally advanced, older players?

Kids need to play to get better. A lot of 2003s will watch their 2002 counterparts from the bench this year. Those 2003s will fall short of their full potential as a result. Year over year this is happening. Why? To save US Soccer and USSDA clubs from the expense of carrying an additional year group? The special players will rise to the top. We know that. But how many 14 and 15 year old kids with potentially high ceilings yet to be realized will get overlooked and underdeveloped with this type of thinking?


----------



## MWN (Sep 3, 2018)

SBFDad said:


> By that logic, why not combine year groups further? U14/15? U12/13? There is so much happening on and off of the field with 14-17 year old boys who will make up the U16/17 ranks over the years...new demands of high school academics, girls, accelerated puberty, slow growers, uneven and erratic mental development.
> 
> To suggest that the U16s aren’t worthy of selection or playing time because they “can’t play up” is short-sided. And who’s to say what kids aren’t really capable of playing up? Do you have that much faith in all of the directors and coaches that operate in the DA sphere to get this part right? How many of those coaches are really focused on true development of players vs. winning with more physically and mentally advanced, older players?
> 
> Kids need to play to get better. A lot of 2003s will watch their 2002 counterparts from the bench this year. Those 2003s will fall short of their full potential as a result. Year over year this is happening. Why? To save US Soccer and USSDA clubs from the expense of carrying an additional year group? The special players will rise to the top. We know that. But how many 14 and 15 year old kids with potentially high ceilings yet to be realized will get overlooked and underdeveloped with this type of thinking?


US Soccer is only interested in identifying the top players that have the potential of making the US MNT and can go pro at 17-18.  The goal in creating the DA was to get the top kids in the US Soccer database, create a league for the top .01% to play with the other 1-5%ers.  You can disagree and kick and scream about it, but US Soccer's mission as the NGB (USOC National Governing Body - Soccer) is to field the national team and promote the sports through its various affiliates.  On the youth side, the Youth Affiliates are US Club, US Youth Soccer, AYSO, etc.

Any kid that that hits U16 and can't play up a year or two is very unlikely to be of the quality that should skip college and go pro by 18 or better yet 17.  I know it sounds horribly cruel to say this but US Soccer's only interest in the DA is to identify those players.  This is the MLS's interest as well and why the MLS is willing to subsidize the DA teams, so it kinda works out.  The 2nd tier DA clubs (those without an MLS bankroll) are only in it for the marketing spin the DA gives them.

Disagree all you want, very little is gained by adding a U16 bracket on the boys side.  Let the kids that can't make it go play with the Youth affiliates for a year and then see if they have the chops to make the older team.  Culling was built into the model because that is how the Europeans do it.


----------



## espola (Sep 4, 2018)

SBFDad said:


> By that logic, why not combine year groups further? U14/15? U12/13? There is so much happening on and off of the field with 14-17 year old boys who will make up the U16/17 ranks over the years...new demands of high school academics, girls, accelerated puberty, slow growers, uneven and erratic mental development.
> 
> To suggest that the U16s aren’t worthy of selection or playing time because they “can’t play up” is short-sided. And who’s to say what kids aren’t really capable of playing up? Do you have that much faith in all of the directors and coaches that operate in the DA sphere to get this part right? How many of those coaches are really focused on true development of players vs. winning with more physically and mentally advanced, older players?
> 
> Kids need to play to get better. A lot of 2003s will watch their 2002 counterparts from the bench this year. Those 2003s will fall short of their full potential as a result. Year over year this is happening. Why? To save US Soccer and USSDA clubs from the expense of carrying an additional year group? The special players will rise to the top. We know that. But how many 14 and 15 year old kids with potentially high ceilings yet to be realized will get overlooked and underdeveloped with this type of thinking?


Here is a true statement to ponder - a young player who is just good enough to play up a year or three will benefit from the experience proportional to the amount of playing time he gets with the older, bigger, better players.  Meanwhile, the older-etc players are just doing public service in developing the next generation.


----------



## jpeter (Sep 4, 2018)

SBFDad said:


> By that logic, why not combine year groups further? U14/15? U12/13? There is so much happening on and off of the field with 14-17 year old boys who will make up the U16/17 ranks over the years...new demands of high school academics, girls, accelerated puberty, slow growers, uneven and erratic mental development.
> 
> To suggest that the U16s aren’t worthy of selection or playing time because they “can’t play up” is short-sided. And who’s to say what kids aren’t really capable of playing up? Do you have that much faith in all of the directors and coaches that operate in the DA sphere to get this part right? How many of those coaches are really focused on true development of players vs. winning with more physically and mentally advanced, older players?
> 
> Kids need to play to get better. A lot of 2003s will watch their 2002 counterparts from the bench this year. Those 2003s will fall short of their full potential as a result. Year over year this is happening. Why? To save US Soccer and USSDA clubs from the expense of carrying an additional year group? The special players will rise to the top. We know that. But how many 14 and 15 year old kids with potentially high ceilings yet to be realized will get overlooked and underdeveloped with this type of thinking?


With the shift to single calendar year age groups Ussda has basically went there own way now for two years and counting with these combo age groups.   Personally I think that's a mistake from a resources point of view  as clubs, coaches, players have invested years of time & money to only to see many players walk away and teams break up.  Ussda is expensive enough and not open to that many players, so why throw that away to I'd the 1% when you know of them anyway?  YNT rarely take on new players after this age anyway.

The real problem with Ussda is the competitive in balance,  6-0 scores at U18/19 this first week of the season,  their is a big gap between say the top 3-4 teams and everybody else in most age groups.

The structure of the league needs to change: MLS teams do thing there own thing like the Galaxy u16/17 who show a incredible 32 players on their posted roster and normal club team have 16 players so everyone has a chance to play since there is only 3-5 subs going in a game anyway & 18 game day max.    When one of those players standout from a normal club, the mls clubs come in a swoop them up perpetuating the in-balance in a endless cycle.

There could be qualifing or qualifications each season for teams to continque on like CRL does rather than gifting clubs teams no matter there performance.  Oh but that would reward win at all cost over development is the arguments but realistic at the u16+ age groups that's what's going on in the ussda anyway.

As far as the players left out due to combined age groups lots of options from them to play in the myrid of other leagues and some will actually be better off since they will play more, the only ones that are losing out is the ussda and some of the clubs who see there investments walk away each year.


----------



## YNWA 96 (Sep 4, 2018)

MWN said:


> US Soccer is only interested in identifying the top players that have the potential of making the US MNT and can go pro at 17-18.  The goal in creating the DA was to get the top kids in the US Soccer database, create a league for the top .01% to play with the other 1-5%ers.  You can disagree and kick and scream about it, but US Soccer's mission as the NGB (USOC National Governing Body - Soccer) is to field the national team and promote the sports through its various affiliates.  On the youth side, the Youth Affiliates are US Club, US Youth Soccer, AYSO, etc.
> 
> Any kid that that hits U16 and can't play up a year or two is very unlikely to be of the quality that should skip college and go pro by 18 or better yet 17.  I know it sounds horribly cruel to say this but US Soccer's only interest in the DA is to identify those players.  This is the MLS's interest as well and why the MLS is willing to subsidize the DA teams, so it kinda works out.  The 2nd tier DA clubs (those without an MLS bankroll) are only in it for the marketing spin the DA gives them.
> 
> Disagree all you want, very little is gained by adding a U16 bracket on the boys side.  Let the kids that can't make it go play with the Youth affiliates for a year and then see if they have the chops to make the older team.  Culling was built into the model because that is how the Europeans do it.


In the 12 years of the DA, how many of these kids who had the "chops" went straight on to play on an MLS team or the Sr. National team?  I am willing guess less than 5%.  Having the maturity, skill, and intelligence to play up an age group or two is a tremendous growth experience but I would argue it is not the only way for players to continue to grow.


----------



## full90 (Sep 4, 2018)

YNWA 96 said:


> In the 12 years of the DA, how many of these kids who had the "chops" went straight on to play on an MLS team or the Sr. National team?  I am willing guess less than 5%.  Having the maturity, skill, and intelligence to play up an age group or two is a tremendous growth experience but I would argue it is not the only way for players to continue to grow.



YES! AND US Soccer has struggled to identify and develop the smaller savvy technical players. We’ve relied on athletes for ever and ever. So the answer to this is to “promote” the biggest, strongest kids while “demote” the kids who maybe haven’t grown yet or can’t out muscle their way thru a game? Makes so much sense.


----------



## younothat (Sep 4, 2018)

full90 said:


> YES! AND US Soccer has struggled to identify and develop the smaller savvy technical players. We’ve relied on athletes for ever and ever. So the answer to this is to “promote” the biggest, strongest kids while “demote” the kids who maybe haven’t grown yet or can’t out muscle their way thru a game? Makes so much sense.


Really?  Like who?  which players?

DeAndre Yedlin, Christian Pulisic,  Kellyn Acosta, Paul Arriola, Tyler Adams, Julian Green, Marky Delgado, Sebastian LLetget, Cristian Roldan, etc  are not exactly  what I would consider big.

Several 2002's turned pro after the lastest ussda playoffs this past season,  New York FC and Galaxy had players that went. Gio Reyna to Dortmund, LA Galaxy Sign midfielder Efrain Alvarez, etc sure they might  play in the 2nd-3rd league until they mature but ussda does have a ceiling and you can reach it why still in high school.


----------



## mirage (Sep 5, 2018)

Most of the replies read like "my kid is under aged year in the combined group"....

I get that you want your own age group so that they get more playing time.  Been there and done that.

Perspective is that the age groups have been tinkered with over the years.  Originally, it was U18/17, U16/15, U14 only.  Always been calendar year grouping.  With addition of younger ages, they split into today's grouping U19/18, U17/16, U15, 14 and so on.

The fact that there is U15 is a direct response to so called late bloomers and 2nd half of the year kids.

Now that my post DA kid is playing in college, I can look back and say that the combined age vs single year age made no difference.  Neither will help identify "smaller creative technical players" or identify late bloomers any better.

The fact of the matter is those smaller or late bloomer players have to compete in the existing system - like it or not.  And if they are competitive enough, then they are.  If not, they are not. 

Lets think about this bit more logically.  Less than the top 1% of the DA players actually make it into YNT pool and actually make the team that represent the country in international events.  In other words, over 99% of DA players are just a pool of players that they can take a look at over time.  So one year, they are either in their own age group or the older of the two.  Another year they are younger age group.  Over time, these players are given sufficient exposure to be evaluated, regardless of how mature or small they are.

Post puberty, the size difference is only in thickness/bulk of players (which affect their strength).  The age grouping only occurs at post puberty age for the VAST MAJORITY of the population.

I have a bigger issue with having U12~13 kids committing to play single sports year around....


----------



## MWN (Sep 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> Most of the replies read like "my kid is under aged year in the combined group"....
> 
> I get that you want your own age group so that they get more playing time.  Been there and done that.
> 
> Lets think about this bit more logically.  Less than the top 1% of the DA players actually make it into YNT pool and actually make the team that represent the country in international events.  In other words, *over 99% of DA players are just a pool of players that they can take a look at over time*.  ...


Ultimately, this was the point and why the Federation doesn't really care all that much about adding another age group at this level.  By the time we get to U15 (14) the kids that have the skill and ability are already on the radar and are likely already playing up a year or two.  These kids get invited to the YNT camps and these are the kids US Soccer has its eye on.

If your kid isn't the star of his team and the highest caliber of player at 12-15, he probably won't make the U16/U17 composite team and his future as a professional is very unlikely.  Sure, there are always exceptions to every rule, the occasional kid blossoms late, which is why opportunities exist to play through U18/U19.

For US Soccer to excel in international play two things must occur: (1) exceptional talent is identified early and paths to professional play are paved (skipping college and/or getting a Generation Adidas deal); and, (2) that exceptional talent is shipped off to Europe at age 18 (or earlier if the athlete can get around Title 19).  These athletes are the future of US Soccer and have no trouble making a composite team and the Federation knows it, which is why its highly unlikely the Federation would muddy the waters and keep the pool players in the pool.


----------



## mirage (Sep 5, 2018)

It puzzles me that we (US companies and individuals) own many top tier soccer teams in the world, including AS Roma, Liverpool, Man U and so on.

Why won't USSF talk to the owners of these clubs and workout coaches apprenticeships and youth academy exposure with those players without FIFA and Visa issues that are playing in this country as well as a formal pathway for players to be developed once they are 16 yrs of age.

The answer is that there is no interest because we want to use MSL as the primary source for American talent.


----------



## younothat (Sep 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> It puzzles me that we (US companies and individuals) own many top tier soccer teams in the world, including AS Roma, Liverpool, Man U and so on.
> 
> Why won't USSF talk to the owners of these clubs and workout coaches apprenticeships and youth academy exposure with those players without FIFA and Visa issues that are playing in this country as well as a formal pathway for players to be developed once they are 16 yrs of age.
> 
> The answer is that there is no interest because we want to use MSL as the primary source for American talent.


FIFA is the one calling the shots &  making the rules:  FIFA Article 19 was been around since 2001 but they didn't really strictly enforce that  that until around 2015 when  FIFA penalized Barcelona and started to look at other clubs as well like Real Madrid.

The Article 19 was enacted largely as a way to stop agents and clubs from bringing children from less-developed for mass tryouts.  The rule says that youth players are not allowed to register with a team in a country other than their own until they are 18. Of course there are some exceptions: such as the 50 kilometer rule,   player is moving from one European country to the other and is at least 16; or if a player’s family is moved to a different country for reasons “not linked to football.”  All the other loopholes have pretty much been closed unless you players has  EU passport and age 16, otherwise have to wait unitl 18.  By 18 academies are less interested in new players so only gets more difficult as the years go by. 

Americans playing in Eupore at age 16 is a long process and you will need  some luck, duality, lots of resources, connections. $$$, and a good agent just to get consideration.  There are thousands of home grown kids and the "dreamers" coming form commonwealth nations, just look at the France for example:  14 French players at the 2018 World Cup with African roots or connections.

These is massive  competition to get into these European academies and unless you have been spending time over there in the summer prior to age 16 and have a agent USSDA is not going to help you much.   The cost of living in Eupore is much higher vs the USA and there are few families that can afford that but many can't.    Its easy to say lets send kids to Eupore at 16 or 18 to play in there academics but very difficult to do because of a number of reasons even if you have the talent that's just one part of the puzzle.   This solution is not viable for most players so we need to find or create other pathways.  USL is one of those ways like what LA Galaxy Sign midfielder Efrain Alvarez has done.  MX league is another possiblity that has its own set of barriers but easier to break in there vs  Europe IMO.


----------



## younothat (Sep 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> It puzzles me that we (US companies and individuals) own many top tier soccer teams in the world, including AS Roma, Liverpool, Man U and so on.
> 
> Why won't USSF talk to the owners of these clubs and workout coaches apprenticeships and youth academy exposure with those players without FIFA and Visa issues that are playing in this country as well as a formal pathway for players to be developed once they are 16 yrs of age.
> 
> The answer is that there is no interest because we want to use MSL as the primary source for American talent.


$$$ is a big factor,  MLS keeps the transfer fees so not much incentives there.  Those top tier soccer teams have a huge pool to choice from so the 1-3 mls players that may move over a season is not worth the effort in most cases.

MLS  takes on more new international player each year and fewer domestic players even make it.  4 out of the 5 forwards on the MLS all star team came from international backgrounds,  as did 10 out of the 12 mids,  USA is represented at the keeper postion, and a 2-3 defenders but all the others are internationals.   Tyler Adams was one of the 3 total on the all-stars with any USSF/DA connections.

Out of College, nope can think of any this past season or past 3 besides Jordan Morris that had any impact in the MLS.   If you ask the causal fan to name a US MLS star most would be hard press to come up with names.


----------



## mirage (Sep 5, 2018)

younothat said:


> ....when  FIFA penalized Barcelona and started to look at other clubs as well like Real Madrid.
> 
> ............unless you players has  EU passport and age 16, otherwise have to wait unitl 18.  By 18 academies are less interested in new players so only gets more difficult as the years go by.


I don't know if you were aware at the time or recall.  That was Ben L and his dad was posting on this forum as "2000boy".  Family moved to Spain and the whole story was told here by his dad.

The latter point, there are PLENTY of players in DA system with dual US/EU citizenship playing (my kid was one of them for an example).  So that part is not a huge stretch.



younothat said:


> .........Americans playing in Eupore at age 16 is a long process and you will need  some luck, duality, lots of resources, connections. $$$,.....


That was my whole point.  Why not sponsor these kids by American companies.  Take the high potential youth player and if they want to pursue professional soccer, why not make that happen by opening the door and sponsoring them.  That's what I meant by having a formal path.

Here's an example and what I mean.  If a highly promising player in US is willing to sign with the Fenway Group (owners of RedSox, and Liverpool) and sign also with New Balance, why not pay the kid to be at Liverpool's youth academy.  As a professional and 18, one can get a working visa and be there.  If under 18, perhaps summer stays or equivalent of internship until 18.

Doing a lone as a privateer is almost certain to fail as you so accurately point out.


----------



## mirage (Sep 5, 2018)

younothat said:


> $$$ is a big factor,  MLS keeps the transfer fees so not much incentives there.  Those top tier soccer teams have a huge pool to choice from so the 1-3 mls players that may move over a season is not worth the effort in most cases.
> 
> MLS  takes on more new international player each year and fewer domestic players even make it.  4 out of the 5 forwards on the MLS all star team came from international backgrounds,  as did 10 out of the 12 mids,  USA is represented at the keeper postion, and a 2-3 defenders but all the others are internationals.   Tyler Adams was one of the 3 total on the all-stars with any USSF/DA connections.
> 
> Out of College, nope can think of any this past season or past 3 besides Jordan Morris that had any impact in the MLS.   If you ask the causal fan to name a US MLS star most would be hard press to come up with names.


Probably I wasn't clear.  I'm saying don't bother with MLS.  Just don't even go there.  They have no right to the player if the player never engaged with them.   

As for college soccer, the only reason my kid is playing is because he's going to college.  Not for soccer sake.  The game is essentially $hit quality.  Its not much more than bigger and faster version of HS soccer.  Its no wonder that college players make little to no impact in the professional ranks.


----------



## Kante (Sep 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> Most of the replies read like "my kid is under aged year in the combined group"....
> 
> I get that you want your own age group so that they get more playing time.  Been there and done that.
> 
> ...



Couple of things.  (warning: longish post,)

Yes, everybody has to compete in the same system now, but the system can be changed. Defending the status quo as if it’s etched in stone from on high, and effectively saying “get over it”, is not exactly high work rate logic.

Combining age groups, at ages where kids are still rapidly developing over time, favors early developers and older kids. Those early developers and older kids are not - on average – necessarily better, but they are bigger and faster relative to their younger or later developing peers. Not sure that anyone can argue this pair of points.

The analogy I once used with a parent who was lamenting that their kid – who was young for the age group - was smaller and slower than the other players is that everybody ends up with the same set of teeth, some kids just get their teeth in earlier than others. Point being, stick with it.

If US Soccer is looking for the best chewers, they should probably wait until everybody has all their teeth in before making decisions that will be definitive. This was US Soccer’s self-interested reasoning behind separating u12, u13, u14 and u15 into their own age groups.

To be clear, US Soccer’s decision was not about being “fair” and making sure that players got PT.

With u16/u17, then, the questions is whether or not there is still a significant developmental gap between younger players and older players in this combined age group.

Let’s go to the data.

This year, the cut-off for u16/u17 is January 1st, 2002. And with the combined age group, in theory, a player who was born on December 31, 2003 could be put on the same field as a player born on January 1, 2002 with potentially a 24 month age advantage.

Per the CDC boys growth data for ages 2-20, at the start of this year’s season, the older player would, on average, be 2 ½ inches taller and more than 19 pounds heavier.

That’s a significant delta to expect any player to make up when challenging for a 50/50 ball and when making/facing a challenge.

And there’s a fair amount of research available that show a direct correlation with age and the ability to pass accurately, receive the ball and anticipate. Again, all big advantages for older players.

(Granted, the younger player would still face a challenge, even if u16 was its own age group, but it wouldn’t be a nineteen pound weight difference challenge.)

When some parents talk disparagingly of those who want to change the system, I get it. Where you stand depends on where you sit. The combined age groups, favoring older and early developing players, probably worked for them.

Full disclosure. I have a son with a birthday in the second half of the calendar year. He’s kicking butt right now on a DA team, has been called up a couple of times and has more than held his own when he’s played against 04’s. But almost every game, he’s one of the shortest kids on the field.

Our family, while not a tall people, happens to have a solid soccer background, and is very aware of the challenges our son faces, and some of the things he can do to mitigate. However, most families of promising younger players don’t have the same context or resources that we do, and I know the attrition rate for those younger players, which will make up 50% of the potential playing pool for u16, is high and gets worse every year from u12 thru u16/u17.

So the real question is whether or not US Soccer, with the outstanding results it’s been getting lately, can afford to lose up to 50% of the potential player pool at u16?

Because that’s the real potential impact of having a combined u16/u17 age group.

Maybe it makes sense for US Soccer and the Development Academy to now look at players, their families, their work ethic, their resilience and their demonstrated love of and commitment to the game, and start making decisions around who has the best chance – everything considered – to be the best soccer players at age 17 and age 18

And then put resources behind those kids to support them, and make simple changes like breaking out u16 as its own age group.

There’s good reasons that many of the world’s best professional soccer players – Hazard, Salah, Guero, Iniesta, Kante, Modric, Mbappe - are 5’6” to 5’ 10”. A lot of it has to do with the physics of soccer, and the physiological demands of playing a game where players run 8-10+ miles in a start/stop manner with lots of left/right movement over the course of 90 minutes with only one break.

Would love to see the age breakdown by month of the’03 players who are playing u16/17 this year. I have a big pot of money available to bet that the '03 players born after July 1 are significantly under-represented on the current DA u16/u17 teams.

Any takers?


----------



## mirage (Sep 5, 2018)

Kante said:


> ......Yes, everybody has to compete in the same system now, but the system can be changed. Defending the status quo as if it’s etched in stone from on high, and effectively saying “get over it”, is not exactly high work rate logic.


No one is defending the existing system on the forum.  Most of us see the flaw.  That said, it is what it is and is a fact.  Also, has nothing to do with high work rate logic.  It has more to do with higher soccer IQ and intelligent plays to make it work within the system.



Kante said:


> ......Per the CDC boys growth data for ages 2-20, at the start of this year’s season, the older player would, on average, be 2 ½ inches taller and more than 19 pounds heavier.
> 
> That’s a significant delta to expect any player to make up when challenging for a 50/50 ball and when making/facing a challenge.
> 
> And there’s a fair amount of research available that show a direct correlation with age and the ability to pass accurately, receive the ball and anticipate. Again, all big advantages for older players


That's the thing I love about people when they drag out general population data.  I have the chart to plot the growth of my own kids since birth.  But in reality, it may or may not be true and certainly cannot be generalized that all young 15 yrs is 19 lbs lighter and 2.5 inches shorter than older 16 yrs old kid. 

I think the 50/50 ball example is in the same logic as the work rate logic you've mentioned.  There is a technique to winning 50/50 ball other than using just own strength.

As for fair amount of research that shows age vs ability to pass and so on as you've noted - where?  Is it for the older age group or for younger children? 

Frankly when you take a year to a 10 yrs old kid, the year is 10% of his life.  With each passing years, the fraction gets smaller and smaller and the impact gets smaller and smaller, especially post puberty.



Kante said:


> ......Full disclosure. I have a son with a birthday in the second half of the calendar year.....held his own when he’s played against 04’s............


Say no more.  Got it.  Your a parent of younger than 04 player.  Your perspective may change when your kid complete puberty or by the time he gets to U16 in 3 years or so.  Just keep a open mind about it.

My kid is late November birthday and started college at 17 yrs old.  He plays on a college team and he is 5-10 and 160 lbs, just an average size.  He was 5-2, 100 lbs when he was a freshman in high school playing on a Varsity team then.- just had turned 14 yrs.  He quit DA to play high school, then went back to DA so he played both in different years.


----------



## younothat (Sep 5, 2018)

Kante said:


> Couple of things.  (warning: longish post,)
> 
> Yes, everybody has to compete in the same system now, but the system can be changed. Defending the status quo as if it’s etched in stone from on high, and effectively saying “get over it”, is not exactly high work rate logic.
> 
> ...


I get you & things have changed quite a bit,  all the ages where combined ones when my player started DA and he was normally always on the smaller side until about the 3rd year when he was average.   

I talked to a lot of people about those earlier years  and ussda was studying what to do,  first the calendar year splits and now the Bio-Banding.   I was disappointed that ussda despite years of study only offered a solution for 2 players per team to basically play down, which we've seen some take liberty on  the guidelines which call for later year birthday and smaller bio footprint.
https://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/files/academy/bio-banding-faq-402018.pdf?la=en

USSDA used to list birthday but switched to birth years a while ago but I do remember looking out of curiosity and you could seen the patterns where some clubs stacked the teams with earlier in the year kids, others mixed but mostly early for the majority i recall. 

Used to be only about 25% or less of the players where on the younger side in the combo years but that has increased but not close to the 50% yet so yes the player pool does shrink.

Part of the bio-banding study could have resulted in a recommendation to go full calendar year for all groups which which would better align to what everybody else is doing.    For some reason the half baked bio-banding initiative  just seems like ussf/da is trying to check a box off for a couple players without doing much for the masses.

DA has  shrunk the number of league games down by almost 33% from 30+ games, plus showcase and playoffs to around 2o+ or so plus fewer showcases.  With the rise of some of the other new leagues, the reduced schedule, and the insistence on no high school play DA is not as big of a draw to some as it previous was with the exception of any MLS team.   The players have been getting better over the years but hard to say the competition level has overall that much.

Speed, tactical IQ, experience, and strength goes along way in over coming size differences and sometimes you do have to go the hard way but the challenge can pay off in the long run,  maybe we've been lucky by the combo age groups have actually helped my player in the long teram but at the same time we've seen a bunch of turnover and keeping teams together in DA can be pretty difficult.


----------



## younothat (Sep 5, 2018)

mirage said:


> I don't know if you were aware at the time or recall.  That was Ben L and his dad was posting on this forum as "2000boy".  Family moved to Spain and the whole story was told here by his dad.
> 
> The latter point, there are PLENTY of players in DA system with dual US/EU citizenship playing (my kid was one of them for an example).  So that part is not a huge stretch.
> 
> ...


Yeah Ben's a few years older but do remember talking to Danny before and after,  our son is friends with a few other player who moved to Spain and we have some family & friends with business in Europe.

Really have not  heard or know of many players with duality possibilities other than mexico on the da teams he's  been on,  normally 1-3 players each year if you count him.

Get you with the sponsorship ideas,  the Gen Adidas and Homegrown  initiatives have very mixed results.  Would think you would have to have a deep pocket sponsor partnership or perhaps a league partnership;  MX, EPL, or some sort of transfer discount possibilities to make that worth it.   Bypassing the MLS through DA is something that would be a hard sell since they MLS youth academies are so expensive.

The residency programs Ala Galaxy, Phil Union, and now Barcelona out in Casa Grande are kind of in the infant stages, so wonder if those will catch on?  The Barcelona USA 70k+ fee is crazy so don't see that being a good option for most.


----------



## MWN (Sep 6, 2018)

@Kante you raise a few good point and like all threads on this forum we kinda took a left turn from the OP's original questions (will the DA create a U16 group for boys).  The "bio-banding" discussion is probably a good one.  Here in SoCal virtually every DA club faced with this challenge of holding onto their younger/smaller talent when the composite year impacts them, takes the remaining team and sends them to play in the CRL/CSL/SCDSL/NPL, etc. for a year, so its really isn't that much of an issue.  I just don't see the DA changing this IF its true to its mission.

*Immediate Future*
As far as the changes coming, what you are going to see in the immediate future is the "bio-banding" initiative taking hold in the various regions.  With the U15 and U16 groups getting to send 2 players down an age group.  In the long term the continued push by the Federation for fully funded residential academies (HS aged kids) will continue.

Because most DA programs simply don't have the resources (_nor the financial incentives available ... solidarity and training fees are not passed on in the US_), you will soon see the DA create two leagues for the boys.  League 1 - Fully Funded MLS programs with a few non-MLS clubs participating; and League 2 - Pay-to-Play DA league.  You are already seeing the DA start to internally and publicly stratify and designate the club numbers.

*Post Youth Development*
The Federation has a major problem and its knows it.  The development of youth stops at 18.  From that point forward, the US lacks any true adult development programs.  The MLS is not as talent rich as it needs to be, thus, the level of competition is very low.  Pushing our elite youth talent into the MLS is slightly better than letting them go to college and stagnate for 4 years there.  The MLS is also horrible at giving youth players 1st division playing time (I use the term 1st division very, very, very, very loosely as the MLS is at best a 3rd division league compared to Europe and Latin America).

When the average age of a National Team player is 26/27, it should become clear that our problem really isn't "youth development" but "professional development."  Domestically, our youth don't get playing time as 18-20 year olds because the MLS is in survival mode.  The level of competition in the USL spotty.  The solution at this time is to get the hell out of Dodge and find a path to the European youth academies.


----------



## ray8 (Sep 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> US Soccer is only interested in identifying the top players that have the potential of making the US MNT and can go pro at 17-18.  The goal in creating the DA was to get the top kids in the US Soccer database, create a league for the top .01% to play with the other 1-5%ers.  You can disagree and kick and scream about it, but US Soccer's mission as the NGB (USOC National Governing Body - Soccer) is to field the national team and promote the sports through its various affiliates.  On the youth side, the Youth Affiliates are US Club, US Youth Soccer, AYSO, etc.
> 
> Any kid that that hits U16 and can't play up a year or two is very unlikely to be of the quality that should skip college and go pro by 18 or better yet 17.  I know it sounds horribly cruel to say this but US Soccer's only interest in the DA is to identify those players.  This is the MLS's interest as well and why the MLS is willing to subsidize the DA teams, so it kinda works out.  The 2nd tier DA clubs (those without an MLS bankroll) are only in it for the marketing spin the DA gives them.
> 
> Disagree all you want, very little is gained by adding a U16 bracket on the boys side.  Let the kids that can't make it go play with the Youth affiliates for a year and then see if they have the chops to make the older team.  Culling was built into the model because that is how the Europeans do it.


US Soccer and most everyone associated with DA's are interested in maintaining livelihoods, often in complete spite of whatever original goals existed in the past. All parents considering USSDA should be aware of this fact.
Years ago I had a friend who worked for the DEA. Made a good living. Traveled the world. Never once did he mention what kept him in the chips would lead to fulfillment of the agency's original goal. 

By the way, Xavi Simons (Barca academy) played Cadete B last year (03's mostly). Maybe one of the top prospects in soccer(?) He'd have been crushed by the 02's in his league.


----------



## jpeter (Sep 6, 2018)

ray8 said:


> US Soccer and most everyone associated with DA's are interested in maintaining livelihoods, often in complete spite of whatever original goals existed in the past. All parents considering USSDA should be aware of this fact.
> Years ago I had a friend who worked for the DEA. Made a good living. Traveled the world. Never once did he mention what kept him in the chips would lead to fulfillment of the agency's original goal.
> 
> By the way, Xavi Simons (Barca academy) played Cadete B last year (03's mostly). Maybe one of the top prospects in soccer(?) He'd have been crushed by the 02's in his league.


Yeah Simons is Dutch and he's fun to watch,  reminds me of the orginal Xavi & Andres Iniesta as youth players.   He world get crushed over here playing u16/17 also as he would be the smallest player on the field by far.

As far as Lederman he left Barcelona this summer to play for Gent in the Belgian league.  As a prospect looking for playing time likely a good move since breaking into the the 1st team at Barca was likely years aways.


----------



## SBFDad (Sep 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> @Kante you raise a few good point and like all threads on this forum we kinda took a left turn from the OP's original questions (will the DA create a U16 group for boys).  The "bio-banding" discussion is probably a good one.  Here in SoCal virtually every DA club faced with this challenge of holding onto their younger/smaller talent when the composite year impacts them, takes the remaining team and sends them to play in the CRL/CSL/SCDSL/NPL, etc. for a year, so its really isn't that much of an issue.  I just don't see the DA changing this IF its true to its mission.
> 
> *Immediate Future*
> As far as the changes coming, what you are going to see in the immediate future is the "bio-banding" initiative taking hold in the various regions.  With the U15 and U16 groups getting to send 2 players down an age group.  In the long term the continued push by the Federation for fully funded residential academies (HS aged kids) will continue.


I think bio-banding is an interesting idea as it supports those slower growing and younger players in an age group. There is definitely some value. Let me ask you MWN, based on your previous responses here...

Doesn’t this initiative run counter to US Soccer’s push that “the best will play up”? It seems that if US Soccer is fine with keeping the U16/17s combined as a measure to weed out the 99+% not destined for YNT and beyond, then why expend any energy bio-banding at U14/15? If these smaller U15 players are superior and destined for higher levels, there should be no need for them to play with the U14s. It should “make zero sense” to do so. Right?


----------



## MWN (Sep 6, 2018)

SBFDad said:


> I think bio-banding is an interesting idea as it supports those slower growing and younger players in an age group. There is definitely some value. Let me ask you MWN, based on your previous responses here...
> 
> Doesn’t this initiative run counter to US Soccer’s push that “the best will play up”? It seems that if US Soccer is fine with keeping the U16/17s combined as a measure to weed out the 99+% not destined for YNT and beyond, then why expend any energy bio-banding at U14/15? If these smaller U15 players are superior and destined for higher levels, there should be no need for them to play with the U14s. It should “make zero sense” to do so. Right?


You make a few assumption in your questions that are not accurate.  

Short Answer: No. Its free and the ROI makes sense. Yes.  Just to be clear, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old boys.  Puberty started around 13 and won't finish until 16/17.

Long Answer:
First Question: US Soccer is concerned with the top 1% (actually, the top .54399231%, rounding up).  Its not just the kids playing up ... but the top .5%.  Now, kids that play up are an excellent indicator of talent, but that is not the Federation's litmus test ... although a 15 year old that can play with the 20 year olds and excel is the unicorn the USSF is looking for.  A 15 year old that can't compete with 16 year olds is not on the radar now ... but a few may be later. 

Second Question: BioBanding could impact about 424 players (or potentially 2/18 per team x 212 impacted team) and costs absolutely nothing to the teams and the Federation.  Of those 400ish potential players, there are about 2 that have potential (assuming the .54399231 number is good).  From a cost perspective.  Adding a U16 bracket would mean there are another 18 players x 102 teams (1,836 additional players) in the system that are nothing more than pool players without a realistic chance of breaking into the next level.  Undertaking the additional costs of 1,836 players to I.D. roughly 2 makes little to no sense ... especially if we can get there with BioBanding to keep those late bloomers in the system.

Third Question:  Yes and no.  Smaller U15 players that can play up are not destined for greatness ... but they are worth keeping an eye on and the upside is definitely better than the same group that can't play up.  It makes sense to keep the smaller kids in the system if we don't add to the overall cost.  So from a pure business perspective, it would be correct to cut the smaller/older players loose because the ROI is not there if we added a U16 group.  However, if we change the rules via "bio banding" then we allow the older/smaller kids to stay in and eliminate spots for the truly weaker players.  The ROI is not impacted through bio-banding;  but is destroyed with a U16 bracket.  So yes and no because the assumption you make is not accurate.


----------



## espola (Sep 6, 2018)

MWN said:


> You make a few assumption in your questions that are not accurate.
> 
> Short Answer: No. Its free and the ROI makes sense. Yes.  Just to be clear, we are talking about 14 and 15 year old boys.  Puberty started around 13 and won't finish until 16/17.
> 
> ...


"Biobanding" at least partially defeats the purpose of playing up.


----------



## MWN (Sep 6, 2018)

espola said:


> "Biobanding" at least partially defeats the purpose of playing up.


Playing up is a form of Biobanding.  In pop warner they have a concept of "older but lighter."  Here we have the same concept.  It really costs nothing to bioband some lighter skillful players to see if they can dominate.  Soccer is still a contact sport (despite the protests of the U9/U10/U11 parents).   While its true that it defeats the purpose of playing up, it nonetheless may allow the Federation to ID 1 or 2 kids that would otherwise be sent packing.


----------



## Real Deal (Sep 6, 2018)

Is


----------



## Box2Box (Sep 7, 2018)

Real Deal said:


> Is this all working?  This id-ing at 12 here in the USA?  Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.


At the moment no.  But you gotta try something.


----------



## MWN (Sep 7, 2018)

Real Deal said:


> Is this all working?  This id-ing at 12 here in the USA?  Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.


I believe the proper measuring stick is what success are the DA youth graduates having at the next level.  Are we seeing more of our talent skip college and go pro?  One of the biggest problems we have in the US is the pro path is still immature, unless you consider making $55k playing soccer good enough.  The European pro path is for the best talent, with the US pro path being for the 2nd tier.

It also important to consider that the DA has yet to reach the level of the European market with players in residential academies.  Here very few of our players are in residential academies, which means the DA is just another league with team practicing a bit more than the lower leagues.  We still have a ways to go before the promise and goals of the DA are met.


----------



## focomoso (Sep 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> It also important to consider that the DA has yet to reach the level of the European market with players in residential academies.  Here very few of our players are in residential academies, which means the DA is just another league with team practicing a bit more than the lower leagues.  We still have a ways to go before the promise and goals of the DA are met.


This may have been addressed before, but the US cannot mirror the European academy model until the academies get the rights to the players. In Europe, you find a young kid, sign him for nothing, develop him and if he's good, can either feed him to your club or sell him for real money. The amount of money involved is so much that getting one hit out of 100 covers the all the costs of the 99 who don't make it. 

In the US, the academies can't secure the rights to their kids. (Most academies aren't even associated with for-profit entities anyway.) So if they develop a super star, they just watch the kid get gobbled up by the Galaxy or LAFC and have nothing to show for it. There's no way for them to recover their costs. And while the MLS clubs do have rights to their homegrown players, they actually sign the kids much later in the process than in Europe so the kid's value is already inflated.

Until this changes - until there's the potential for financial gain for an academy to develop players - we aren't going to see development in the academies.


----------



## jpeter (Sep 7, 2018)

Real Deal said:


> Is this all working?  This id-ing at 12 here in the USA?  Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.


Time will tell but it was already being abused last year: players born in the 1st half of a calendar year and some really tall forward & keepers managed to play down so I don't if anybody is actually auditing or looking at who is really bio-banding?


----------



## Kante (Sep 7, 2018)

Here’s a study that speaks to the developmental advantages of older players when it comes to passing accuracy, passing speed and response time. The study looked players ages 11 to 16 and saw pretty direct correlations for age vs the “y” factors mentioned above.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023

There’s a number of similar studies looking at this type of info online.  A search for the terms “soccer relative age effect study” should get you there.
__________

On bio banding, the USSDA performance guy says that bio banding is as much or more about having older/developmentally advanced players play up so they don’t stall out technically.

Sure, playing up is an indicator that a player exceeds his age cohort in terms positive impact on the field at a particular point in time.

However, this positive field impact may be an indicator of talent, but, I would argue (applying the .5% rule), more likely is an indicator of temporary size and speed advantages.

If these kids don’t play up, sure, they’ll be stars at 12, 13,14, and 15 but they risk stalling out and then dropping out when they hit 16, 17 and 18, which is what the English clubs are seeing.

(There’s a couple of nationally ranked top 05 teams in LA and SD with really big back lines and front lines respectively. Will be really interesting to see where some of the players on these teams are in four to five years. Maintaining this top ranking is great for the club, but maybe not so great for the players.)

________

On younger players developing more by playing with older kids, I completely agree.

Our older would have been a beast if USSDA had kept the age grouping at school year, rather than birth year. But he also would not be as good technically as he is now. Practicing and playing against older players has definitely made him a better player.

Having said that, our older also benefited from RAE until the year before last. Not sure that he would have made it this far if he had been in the youngest quartile since day one.

And that’s a key point. 

Our younger has been one of the youngest since day one, and it was really tough playing against the kids who were almost a year older, despite a lot of support most kids don’t get (we’re a soccer family with a number of close friends in the soccer community who have helped both our boys develop).

Now that things are more evened out age wise for him with the switch to birth year , he’s catching up and playing Academy. 

He’ll be bigger than our older, and may actually turn out, because of his vision and some other intangibles, in a couple of years, to be a better player. But if he had to go to the back of the line again age wise, his development would likely stall.


If US Soccer split u16, u17 and u18 into single year age groups instead of having u16/17 and u18/u19, they would increase the player pool – and the opportunity to find national team quality players - by about 50%.

All it would take from a national team POV to get to justify this change is to find one or two additional quality players – who happened to be younger - per year. And applying the .5% odds to the additional 1,500 player who could get a shot, there’s at least a couple of quality players who would will be culled by the u16/u17 filter.

And then there’s a side benefit (from US Soccer’s pov), that a large number of kids may also then have a much better chance to keep playing a high enough level to get into colleges that they might not otherwise get into with maybe even scholarships.

And USSDA should eliminate the whole u19 age grouping because it's ridiculous. Topic for another day…


----------



## full90 (Sep 7, 2018)

Kante said:


> Here’s a study that speaks to the developmental advantages of older players when it comes to passing accuracy, passing speed and response time. The study looked players ages 11 to 16 and saw pretty direct correlations for age vs the “y” factors mentioned above.
> 
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023
> 
> ...



Thank you so much. This is a very rational rationale and fits with what I have seen. You said it better than I could have and better than I've seen. For the vast majority of DA clubs kids going on to play in college is and will be there siren call to attract talent. "We sent a player who is now with LA Galaxy 2" is less compelling to the vast majority of parents than "We've sent 70% of our DA players to play in college." To this end DA Clubs should be demanding single age groups as this feeds into this bottom line of getting kids to college. I KNOW DA is the "path to pro" and it goes against the inherent reason for the DA BUT reality isn't matching that so DA clubs should demand something different...much like the girls side did.  But they've already invested so much in these kids...promote the u16's who need it to u17 team but keep a u16 pure team to keep kids in the system and pipeline. 

I also agree on the u19 age group. From the clubs I know that age band is a mess. 

Thanks again for your post.


----------



## mirage (Sep 7, 2018)

Kante said:


> Here’s a study ....
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185460#sec023


Thanks for the link.  Reads bit like a white paper for COGNIFOOT, product utilization, especially when comparing what would coaches do vs COGNIFOOT results.

I'd like to add bit of interpretation though....
46 players evaluated from age 11~14 yrs (U12~U15) but 31 of 46 are pre-puberty players (11 to 13 yrs old).  Obviously, when comparing results of youngers with olders, clearly would show bigger differences.   Additionally, two U16 players were added to the 14 yrs old pool and and two females at the two older age groups.

The report concludes that:
_"These observations confirmed that the pre- adolescence–mid-adolescence period is of critical developmental stage for the acquisition of superior perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer"_

Everyone would agree.

All that said, the topic is to separate older ages and not the youngers - they are already in individual years.



Kante said:


> .....Our older would have been a beast if USSDA had kept the age grouping at school year, rather than birth year......
> 
> If US Soccer split u16, u17 and u18 into single year age groups instead of having u16/17 and u18/u19, they would increase the player pool – and the opportunity to find national team quality players - by about 50%....


As far as I can recall, it has always been calendar year for DA since inception in 2008 to match the international rules.  There was never a switch in DA from August start date.

In terms of player pool, there is a reason why there are less older player DA clubs than younger.  USSF doesn't want more players in the pool.  They want the right players in the pool.  They are seeking quality over quantity.  They know the attrition and are only interested in those that make the fewer number of teams at these age groups.

One can argue what they are getting is of quality or not but by having more players only makes "pay to play" DA clubs richer and USSF's job harder to identify the players of interest. Sort of like having too many menu items in a restaurant....



Kante said:


> ..........And USSDA should eliminate the whole u19 age grouping because it's ridiculous. Topic for another day…


As for U19/18 group, a significant number of those U19 players are college "unofficial red shirt" or sometimes called "gray shirt" players.  In other words, those players are recruited but not ready to play (e.g., red shirt) but have a year of eligibility left due to birth year.  Many college coaches have a working relationship with their local DA club and send those players.  The coach would rather have the players play than just train and sit out the year.  Since these players are intentionally not rostered or have played in any college games, they are eligible to DA.

To conclude, I personally, wished that USSF had a different method to identify MNT/YNT players than how they do it now.  Also, I wished they had a different mentality coaches where they place higher values on movement, creativity and technical skills with and without the ball.  The problem is that we have been successful just enough historically (current situation not withstanding) in the past that a whole sale change is not favored.  Besides, many in the USSF would have to make themselves redundant and turn the control over to someone else completely.


----------



## SBFDad (Sep 7, 2018)

On the U19 age group debate...I think of the U18/19 age group as the high school seniors. Most seniors will by U18 when they graduate high school but the later birth month players in a calendar year group will be U19s when seniors. This combined age group is the only one that makes sense on paper. This of course assumes that those kids that graduate high school in June move on from DA the following Fall to play college ball. Sounds as if this isn’t happening though in some cases. Grow up. Move on.


----------



## ray8 (Sep 8, 2018)

Real Deal said:


> Is this all working?  This id-ing at 12 here in the USA?  Whether bio-banded or not? Is it working? That's all I'd like to know.


Anyone paying the slightest attention knows the answer. Ask yourselves: What's in it for anyone involved if it worked? A pat on the back? 
Much more profitable to maintain the illusion that it could work. Endless supply of parents willing to pay for their child to be seen, if you can keep that illusion going.


----------



## ray8 (Sep 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> We still have a ways to go before the promise and goals of the DA are met.


Hilarious. 
Their goal is self-preservation. 
If you had a son in this age group you would see the obvious instead of what you've read somewhere.


----------



## espola (Sep 9, 2018)

mirage said:


> As for U19/18 group, a significant number of those U19 players are college "unofficial red shirt" or sometimes called "gray shirt" players.  In other words, those players are recruited but not ready to play (e.g., red shirt) but have a year of eligibility left due to birth year.  Many college coaches have a working relationship with their local DA club and send those players.  The coach would rather have the players play than just train and sit out the year.  Since these players are intentionally not rostered or have played in any college games, they are eligible to DA.


What schools are participating in this?


----------

