# 2020-2021 Boys Age Groups



## SBFDad (Nov 16, 2019)

Might be a little early, but figured I’d test the rumor mill waters. Anyone hearing anything concerning age groups for boys next season? 

Particularly the future of U13 and a U16/17 split?


----------



## 66 GTO (Nov 16, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Might be a little early, but figured I’d test the rumor mill waters. Anyone hearing anything concerning age groups for boys next season?
> 
> Particularly the future of U13 and a U16/17 split?


I ‘ve heard that u13 will go away 
And it will be u14,u15,u16,u17 and combined 18/19
And also heard that it would be announced this December at the olders  showcase 
Will see...


----------



## jpeter (Nov 18, 2019)

Traditionally the winter showcase Is where you hear about the next season plans  but ussda has a habit of last minute changes so who knows.  

They should just go full calendar year and be done with it already.  U19 (01's this year) is silly since most kids are in college by then anyway.  I doubt they will change the no HS play deal but they should, another silly leftover.


----------



## StrikerOC (Nov 18, 2019)

66 GTO said:


> I ‘ve heard that u13 will go away
> And it will be u14,u15,u16,u17 and combined 18/19
> And also heard that it would be announced this December at the olders  showcase
> Will see...


I believe they are keeping U13. We have been told U-13 is happening.


----------



## messy (Nov 18, 2019)

StrikerOC said:


> I believe they are keeping U13. We have been told U-13 is happening.


So you are saying that ‘08 will be a DA category next year? Not my understanding.


----------



## SBFDad (Nov 19, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Traditionally the winter showcase Is where you hear about the next season plans  but ussda has a habit of last minute changes so who knows.
> 
> They should just go full calendar year and be done with it already.  U19 (01's this year) is silly since most kids are in college by then anyway.  I doubt they will change the no HS play deal but they should, another silly leftover.


I agree on a calendar year approach, but the exception should be U18/19. This mix allows players born in the later months of a birth year (HS juniors at U18) to have somewhere to play their senior year. Otherwise, it’s a full year of training, gameplay, and prep they would miss out on prior to entering (and likely playing in) college.


----------



## jpeter (Nov 19, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> I agree on a calendar year approach, but the exception should be U18/19. This mix allows players born in the later months of a birth year (HS juniors at U18) to have somewhere to play their senior year. Otherwise, it’s a full year of training, gameplay, and prep they would miss out on prior to entering (and likely playing in) college.


Nobody has to miss out and there are few players that fit the criteria.  The Galaxy has just one of the example Golden State a couple, strikers 3, etc.  Why create a combo age group of a dozen or so players? They are the exception not the rule.  My u19 player was born in the later half of the year and she's a college freshman already.

Those players had 5-6 age groups they could had played in for the previous  5-6 years or so and when your 18-19yrs old and haven't found somewhere to train & play by then don't think DA is going to make a difference for such a small group of players.  Go play usl or something else if needed.


----------



## Husky13 (Nov 19, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Nobody has to miss out and there are few players that fit the criteria.  The Galaxy has just one of the example Golden State a couple, strikers 3, etc.  Why create a combo age group of a dozen or so players? They are the exception not the rule.  My u19 player was born in the later half of the year and she's a college freshman already.
> 
> Those players had 5-6 age groups they could had played in for the previous  5-6 years or so and when your 18-19yrs old and haven't found somewhere to train & play by then don't think DA is going to make a difference for such a small group of players.  Go play usl or something else if needed.


I don't understand this post.  I thought the point of the prior post was that kids who are DA-level, who perhaps played DA all the way through, who happen to be born in the second half of the year and don't graduate from high school after U18 (like the upper-half calendar year kids), shouldn't be left twisting in the wind with nowhere to play during their senior year.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.


----------



## Kante (Nov 19, 2019)

so is the consensus then that there will be boys u16 next year?


----------



## StrikerOC (Nov 19, 2019)

messy said:


> So you are saying that ‘08 will be a DA category next year? Not my understanding.


Yes, we were told that it is happening. I suppose anything can change but I feel very comfortable with the person who works at our club who told us


----------



## jpeter (Nov 19, 2019)

Husky13 said:


> I don't understand this post.  I thought the point of the prior post was that kids who are DA-level, who perhaps played DA all the way through, who happen to be born in the second half of the year and don't graduate from high school after U18 (like the upper-half calendar year kids), shouldn't be left twisting in the wind with nowhere to play during their senior year.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding.


You can be born in the 2nd half of year play u18 and be a senior in highschool.

U19 is a different story , players are college age for the most part > 75 % of them in DA have already finished high school by then so you're creating a special combo ag (u18/19) for a minority of the players who are essentially playing down.  For example 01's playing with mostly 02's and the better 03's this season.  If your a u19 player already there are plenty of other leagues to play in like USL with competition that's more appropriate.


----------



## StrikerOC (Nov 19, 2019)

StrikerOC said:


> Yes, we were told that it is happening. I suppose anything can change but I feel very comfortable with the person who works at our club who told us


Another telling sign that DA is happening with 08 is the NPL league that all academies are currently playing in. Our 08 won’t be playing in it next year (presumably) because we will be playing academy but the 09 in the NPL will have one more year


----------



## SoCal23 (Nov 19, 2019)

StrikerOC said:


> Another telling sign that DA is happening with 08 is the NPL league that all academies are currently playing in. Our 08 won’t be playing in it next year (presumably) because we will be playing academy but the 09 in the NPL will have one more year


How has your experience been with the NPL league?


----------



## StrikerOC (Nov 20, 2019)

SoCal23 said:


> How has your experience been with the NPL league?


I think it has been “ok”. Competition has been slightly better then scdsl in some respect but their are only 4-5 competitive teams. Our team has been playing up in age scdsl 11v11 so the transition between 9v9 to 11v11 in the same weekend (sometimes same day) can be tough.

I do think it was a good league to prep for academy


----------



## Keeper3114 (Dec 1, 2019)

I was told from a source that goes to the DA meetings that this is the last year of u13 DA. DA boys will mirror girls side u14, u15, u16, u17 and u18/19.


----------



## StrikerOC (Dec 4, 2019)

Keeper3114 said:


> I was told from a source that goes to the DA meetings that this is the last year of u13 DA. DA boys will mirror girls side u14, u15, u16, u17 and u18/19.


Whatever the plan is, they should just announce it and allow clubs to prepare. The whole process seems very unorganized...


----------



## Lambchop (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> You can be born in the 2nd half of year play u18 and be a senior in highschool.
> 
> U19 is a different story , players are college age for the most part > 75 % of them in DA have already finished high school by then so you're creating a special combo ag (u18/19) for a minority of the players who are essentially playing down.  For example 01's playing with mostly 02's and the better 03's this season.  If your a u19 player already there are plenty of other leagues to play in like USL with competition that's more appropriate.


Curious, why does this bother you?


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

StrikerOC said:


> Whatever the plan is, they should just announce it and allow clubs to prepare. The whole process seems very unorganized...


Talk to your director next week.   There are meetings/discussions this week in Florida at the event.

The normal course is they let directors know in December, change there mind sometimes, and finally published something in Feb or as late as March like this year.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

Lambchop said:


> Curious, why does this bother you?


No bother to me just not think it's appropriate platform for adults at that age or to play down.

18 yrs olds or turning 19 are essentially adults so why with play kids up to 3 years younger, that's not what DA should be about IMO. Competition is just not good enough and there are plenty of other places to play vs other adults.


----------



## Desert Hound (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> You can be born in the 2nd half of year play u18 and be a senior in highschool.
> 
> U19 is a different story , players are college age for the most part > 75 % of them in DA have already finished high school by then so you're creating a special combo ag (u18/19) for a minority of the players who are essentially playing down.  For example 01's playing with mostly 02's and the better 03's this season.  If your a u19 player already there are plenty of other leagues to play in like USL with competition that's more appropriate.


U19 is not a different story. The reason they do the last age group a combo of 18/19 is that you have kids that started school later. My kid being one of them. When the BULK of my kids team are seniors...there will be some on that team that are juniors. So when they become seniors they are u19s. That is why both ECNL and DA have the final age group as U18/U19


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

Desert Hound said:


> U19 is not a different story. The reason they do the last age group a combo of 18/19 is that you have kids that started school later. My kid being one of them. When the BULK of my kids team are seniors...there will be some on that team that are juniors. So when they become seniors they are u19s. That is why both ECNL and DA have the final age group as U18/U19


Ok do you have any real world example of DA teams stacked with  u19 players for boys? 2001's are few and far in-between for socal DA u18/19 teams.   Maybe your talking about a different state or something else or some other league like ECNL.

Starting later than what?  You have to be either behind a year or born in the last 2-3 months of the year &  already  be 18 at the beginning  of your senior year to be a 2001 in your last year of HS around here.  Most of your peers have moved on and are already in college like my 18 yr old freshman 2001 daughter.

Combo calendar year special interest groups u18/19 for small % for players who are essentially playing down is not needed or popular in the SW DA so why not make a clean break and go straight calendar year.


----------



## carla hinkle (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Ok do you have any real world example of DA teams stacked with  u19 players for boys? 2001's are few and far in-between for socal DA u18/19 teams.   Maybe your talking about a different state or something else or some other league like ECNL.
> 
> Starting later than what?  You have to be either behind a year or born in the last 2-3 months of the year &  already  be 18 at the beginning  of your senior year to be a 2001 in your last year of HS around here.  Most of your peers have moved on and are already in college like my 18 yr old freshman 2001 daughter.
> 
> Combo calendar year special interest groups u18/19 for small % for players who are essentially playing down is not needed or popular in the SW DA so why not make a clean break and go straight calendar year.


I think you will have more of these kids from now on since California changed the kindergarten start age from turning 5 by Dec. 2 to turning 5 by Sept. 1 about 5 years ago. The fall bday kids, Sept-Dec (1/3 of the calendar year, that's not an insignificant number of kids) who in the past would have been turning 17 in the fall of their senior year of HS are now turning 18 the fall of their senior year of HS. That's entering school on the regular schedule, not being held back or behind. My 2009 kid has a team about 2/3 5th grade and 1/3 4th grade. So in 7 years, that team will be 2/3 seniors and 1/3 juniors. That 1/3 of the team needs a place to play their last year before college, when they are seniors, and the kids born Jan-Aug have graduated HS. So an 18/19 age group seems appropriate for that last year.

At the older ages (current HS players) the kinder age start in California was younger, under the old law, and so it is not as pronounced a difference. There are only a small number of kids (December birthdays, essentially) who would need that 18/19 age group.


----------



## Kante (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Ok do you have any real world example of DA teams stacked with  u19 players for boys? 2001's are few and far in-between for socal DA u18/19 teams.   Maybe your talking about a different state or something else or some other league like ECNL.
> 
> Starting later than what?  You have to be either behind a year or born in the last 2-3 months of the year &  already  be 18 at the beginning  of your senior year to be a 2001 in your last year of HS around here.  Most of your peers have moved on and are already in college like my 18 yr old freshman 2001 daughter.
> 
> Combo calendar year special interest groups u18/19 for small % for players who are essentially playing down is not needed or popular in the SW DA so why not make a clean break and go straight calendar year.


as you know, I look to you for (always very good) guidance on a number of questions, but have to disagree on a point here.

25% of the potential player population - i.e. oct thru dec dobs - is not a special interest group, particularly if these players are still playing DA at this point.

to be fair, not sure that a combo u18/u19 yr age group, or any combo yr age group for that matter, is the right way to go but easy on the characterization of Q4 calendar year dobs. 

odds are already artificially super stacked against these kids by the powers that be.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

Kante said:


> as you know, I look to you for (always very good) guidance on a number of questions, but have to disagree on a point here.
> 
> 25% of the potential player population - i.e. oct thru dec dobs - is not a special interest group, particularly if these players are still playing DA at this point.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but making a special case for just one small % of adults (18+) seems like a step backwards to me.  Calendar year but..  

For the other leagues or HS sure why not, u19's/2001 in national & state cup.  For DA I don't see this a good platform for 18yr olds unless something changes.  USL academy is starting next year so maybe that would work for those that value more team continuity.


----------



## Kante (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Fair enough, but making a special case for just one small % of adults (18+) seems like a step backwards to me.  Calendar year but..
> 
> For the other leagues or HS sure why not, u19's/2001 in national & state cup.  For DA I don't see this a good platform for 18yr olds unless something changes.  USL academy is starting next year so maybe that would work for those that value more team continuity.


The way the system works now - based on calendar year - kids born Jan to Mar are artificially favored for every DA age group except u18/u19. 

The 25% of the potential player pool that are oct to dec dob's are not, imo, either a special interest group or a special case or a small %.

(stepping up on my high horse...)

If this 25% was, instead of being oct to dec dob, a specific ethnic group being systematically disadvantaged in a blatant and obvious manner, (and, btw, I've gone on record multiple times saying US Soccer is doing just this thing), there would be outrage.

(stepping down off my high horse...)

Guess my point is that continuing u18/19, with it being the one time in the DA system where the Oct to Dec dob players have equal footing for once, seems the very, lowest minimum the DA can do. Come on, Jpeter, throw the youngers a bone...


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

Kante said:


> The way the system works now - based on calendar year - kids born Jan to Mar are artificially favored for every DA age group except u18/u19.
> 
> The 25% of the potential player pool that are oct to dec dob's are not, imo, either a special interest group or a special case or a small %.
> 
> ...


Ah get you, just so everyone knows both my players are/where on the younger side Q4 born  but at 18 it's much too late to throw them a bone.  The bone needs to happen at much younger age IMO to make any real difference.

U18/19 was only introduced in DA when the calendar year change happen to give a bridge to some players so they could finish out.  Those bridges have been crossed now after 3 seasons so it's time.


----------



## Kante (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Ah get you, just so everyone knows both my players are/where on the younger side Q4 born  but at 18 it's much too late to throw them a bone.  The bone needs to happen at much younger age IMO to make any real difference.
> 
> U18/19 was only introduced in DA when the calendar year change happen to give a bridge to some players so they could finish out.  Those bridges have been crossed now after 3 seasons so it's time.


agreed on bone/much younger age. unfortunately ussda had a couple of good ideas - futures camp, TC's specifically including Q4 dob players - but those items both went away in 2018-19.


----------



## messy (Dec 4, 2019)

Kante said:


> agreed on bone/much younger age. unfortunately ussda had a couple of good ideas - futures camp, TC's specifically including Q4 dob players - but those items both went away in 2018-19.


Bio- banding is a must for the US at younger ages. Coaches training in Germany and Spain is also a must. These must be US Soccer initiatives.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> No bother to me just not think it's appropriate platform for adults at that age or to play down.
> 
> 18 yrs olds or turning 19 are essentially adults so why with play kids up to 3 years younger, that's not what DA should be about IMO. Competition is just not good enough and there are plenty of other places to play vs other adults.


Ya, you’re pretty much off base here. Again...this is about giving young U19s a place to play their senior year of high school. If young 2001s are playing against the better 2003s (who have been IDed as good enough to play up) this season, so be it. Better for those 2003s and gives these 2001s a place to play in 12th grade before they enter college the following academic year. 

Since many of the 2002s this season will be 18yr old legal adults before playoffs are done next summer, should they also be excluded once they turn 18? Your argument doesn’t hold water.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Ya, you’re pretty much off base here. Again...this is about giving young U19s a place to play their senior year of high school. If young 2001s are playing against the better 2003s (who have been IDed as good enough to play up) this season, so be it. Better for those 2003s and gives these 2001s a place to play in 12th grade before they enter college the following academic year.
> 
> Since many of the 2002s this season will be 18yr old legal adults before playoffs are done next summer, should they also be excluded once they turn 18? Your argument doesn’t hold water.


Your all mixed up it's 18yrs old before the season starts not after thus u19. nothing to do with 02's never mentioned anything but 01' so I don't no what you're arguing about.

01s are 18-19yrs old playing w / 03's that where 15-16 at the time, at the Galaxy U18/19 so if you think a 3 yr age difference helps yes it does for the 03's but for the 01's well i don't think so.  There are plenty of other leagues, usl to play in for 18yr olds.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Your all mixed up it's 18yrs old before the season starts not after thus u19. nothing to do with 02's never mentioned anything but 01' so I don't no what you're arguing about. 01s are 18-19yrs old playing w / 03's that where 15-16 at the time


Wait. What? Someone's math is off. Could be me, but don't think so. Let's first establish that the DA season ends in July for those that make a deep playoff run...

Since most of the 2001s that are seniors in HS (and still playing DA) were born after July 2001, doesn't that mean that they started their U19 season as 17yr olds and will finish up their U19 season as 18yr olds?

Example - A current U19 player born Dec 4, 2001 is celebrating his 18th birthday today and will still be 18 in July 2020. He started the season in Aug/Sep as a older 17yr old. True?

Are there really any U19s that are seniors in high school born prior to July? If so, that's got to be a very small percentage. So we penalize the entire lot of U19s from playing their senior year because of this possibility?

Why are you convinced that U19s who are "18yrs old before the season starts" and that "01s are 18-19yrs old playing w / 03's that where 15-16 at the time", shouldn't be allowed to play DA their senior year of high school? Does the fact that that start at 17 and finish at 18 change your view?

Someone check the math please or guess we could just move along.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Wait. What? Someone's math is off. Could be me, but don't think so. Let's first establish that the DA season ends in July for those that make a deep playoff run...
> 
> Since most of the 2001s that are seniors in HS (and still playing DA) were born after July 2001, doesn't that mean that they started their U19 season as 17yr olds and will finish up their U19 season as 18yr olds?
> 
> ...


Your examples are the extreme ends of the scale need to consider the norms. Simple 80/20 rule.   No body is punishing anybody as there are choices

The senior class this year is > 80% made up of 2002's.  Big majority of 01's already in college.  A small % of 01's are still in HS and playing DA. 

Galaxy has just one 01 player he started thre season as a 18yr old going on 19.  He's played along side players that where 15 at the start going on 16.  That's it.  DA is not about playing down.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Your examples are the extreme ends of the scale need to consider the norms. Simple 80/20 rule.   No body is punishing anybody as there are choices
> 
> The senior class this year is > 80% made up of 2002's.  Big majority of 01's already in college.  A small % of 01's are still in HS and playing DA.
> 
> Galaxy has just one 01 player he started the season as a 18yr old going on 19.  He's played along side players that where 15 at the start going on 16.  That's it.  DA is not about playing down.


Man, I really am trying to see your point, but I just don't see the logic. You're trying to keep the younger 2001s from making a mistake by short-changing their development by playing "down"? If they're ready to move to a higher league like USL, ok do that. If not, then allow them to finish their senior year in DA. I don't get it.

And I don't think my examples really are the extreme. Almost all 2001s in DA are younger 01s still in high school. Not extreme, normal. I would see the value in a rule that only would allow U19s to play that meet certain criteria...gotta be in HS and must be born after a certain month (ie. July-ish).

You clearly think that birth-year trumps their status as HS seniors. Fair enough. Agree to disagree.


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 4, 2019)

Desert Hound said:


> U19 is not a different story. The reason they do the last age group a combo of 18/19 is that you have kids that started school later. My kid being one of them. When the BULK of my kids team are seniors...there will be some on that team that are juniors. So when they become seniors they are u19s. That is why both ECNL and DA have the final age group as U18/U19


Agree.  My son is in the same category.  Could not understand where the earlier post was coming from on this issue.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Man, I really am trying to see your point, but I just don't see the logic. You're trying to keep the younger 2001s from making a mistake by short-changing their development by playing "down"? If they're ready to move to a higher league like USL, ok do that. If not, then allow them to finish their senior year in DA. I don't get it.
> 
> And I don't think my examples really are the extreme. Almost all 2001s in DA are younger 01s still in high school. Not extreme, normal. I would see the value in a rule that only would allow U19s to play that meet certain criteria...gotta be in HS and must be born after a certain month (ie. July-ish).
> 
> You clearly think that birth-year trumps their status as HS seniors. Fair enough. Agree to disagree.


Calendar year is what it is and nothing Trump's that. Continuing combo Age groups is a circumvent to that.   HS status can change/vary read Gracie post but accommodating a 20% minority is not cost effective or needed in DA. 

Jan-Oct 2001( all the way to Dec in some cases as grace noted) are college freshmen.  Nov-Dec 2001 HS seniors this year are the 20% minority.   Look at the DA rosters very few 01's, why so you think that is? Moved on or went to college.  

Shortchanging nope those players had 5 or more seasons of DA opportunities.  At 18yrs do there really need another one playing vs 80% younger players in DA?   I don't think they do as there are more appropriate platforms.  Seniors well they can play HS, club, usl, etc. As 18 yrs adults they can play & do as they want in most cases.   There are plenty of places to play besides DA at 18.  

If your son was not a Nov-Dec dob you might see the logic better & understand the 80/20.

The currently u18/19 combo has been a plus actually for my player but two years from now he will be long gone even though he would still be eligible so I have nothing to gain from a change.  However,  my experience tells me that the 80% would.  Not about my player,  in the future DA would be better served to focus on the 5 age groups: u14-U18 like they did for the first 8 years and leave everything else for the rest of the youth soccer world.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 4, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Calendar year is what it is and nothing Trump's that. Continuing combo Age groups is a circumvent to that.   HS status can change/vary read Gracie post but accommodating a 20% minority is not cost effective or needed in DA.
> 
> Jan-Oct 2001( all the way to Dec in some cases as grace noted) are college freshmen.  Nov-Dec 2001 HS seniors this year are the 20% minority.   Look at the DA rosters very few 01's, why so you think that is? Moved on or went to college.
> 
> ...


Ok. You’re point is clear, but I do disagree. Yes most 01s have moved on to college, but I think it’s legit to allow those that haven’t to continue to play in DA. Although, I do like the thought of meeting specific criteria...younger, still in HS. 

To be fair, mine is a March birthday that will graduate after U18. This argument won’t apply to him, but I see the point of and agree with those folks with younger birth-year players.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 4, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Ok. You’re point is clear, but I do disagree. Yes most 01s have moved on to college, but I think it’s legit to allow those that haven’t to continue to play in DA. Although, I do like the thought of meeting specific criteria...younger, still in HS.
> 
> To be fair, mine is a March birthday that will graduate after U18. This argument won’t apply to him, but I see the point of and agree with those folks with younger birth-year players.


Alrighty good to see you considering others outside your box.  

Giving 18 yrs adults another chance since they didn't enough of those as youth players doesn't seem to be a good reason or sound investment for DA  currently but I can understand we're some might think it's in their best interest.  I for one don't subscribe to that train of thought especially when you consider who they are playing with but heck their 18 and can make there own decisions, sign and do whatever.   Parents sometimes value status or titles more than players do, mine for one just wants to play the best competition wherever that is:  DA at 18yrs going on 19 is not that place for him.  DA need to revamp or have some sort of transitional bridge like USL for these older players if they want them to keep developing at a certain rate.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 5, 2019)

So... FL meetings today? Any news trickling out? New DA clubs? Age group stuff yet?


----------



## oldman (Dec 6, 2019)

Keeper3114 said:


> I was told from a source that goes to the DA meetings that this is the last year of u13 DA. DA boys will mirror girls side u14, u15, u16, u17 and u18/19.


It's official: DA boys U16/17 will again be joint age group next year.


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 7, 2019)

oldman said:


> It's official: DA boys U16/17 will again be joint age group next year.


That is good news, thanks for the update.  Is there anywhere where we can find an announcemwnt of this?


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 7, 2019)

Husky13 said:


> That is good news...


What’s good about it? It’s a mistake that US Soccer insists on making year after year.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 7, 2019)

Confirmed notes from last night's Winter Showcase Presentation:  For 2020-2021:
U13 Season (08s): is on.  Will not participate in Showcase but encouraged to participate in outside competitions.  DA expanding that list of approved tournaments, etc. 
as it has been said, U16/17 will remain a combo year. 
Two-tier will not expand to multiple age groups. 
U14 group- no change.  Next year, 07s will be run just as the 06s were this year. 
U15- No winter showcase participation. But, Non-MLS DAs will have a Fall Showcase. MLS Clubs have their own youth cup. 
Interesting statement: "Need to develop pathway to move top talent to top clubs."

Bio-Banding Event will be 1/1/20 at Silverlakes.


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 7, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> What’s good about it? It’s a mistake that US Soccer insists on making year after year.


I misunderstood.  Joint?  Not separate?  Seriously?


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 7, 2019)

Husky13 said:


> I misunderstood.  Joint?  Not separate?  Seriously?


Apparently so. So many 04s getting the shaft this year. 03s got their share last season. Looks like the 05s will endure the same. US Soccer is falling apart, yet status quo is the approach?

I’ve heard the old, tired argument that the joint 16/17 is a weeding out or filtering process. It’s all nonsense. Kids hit stride at a wide range of ages and they need to play to improve.


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 7, 2019)

The “It’s official” part of the earlier text threw me off, because that made it sound like what has been discussed for so long had been adopted.  This begs the question: what changed?  Why all of the rumors and expectations that the U16/17 split was a done deal?  Was none of this accurate?  Was everyone simply wrong, were all of these claims of “inside sources” simply BS?  Or did something change last minute?

I could see MLS academies sounding in that they don’t want the added expense of another team.


----------



## foreveryoung (Dec 9, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Apparently so. So many 04s getting the shaft this year. 03s got their share last season. Looks like the 05s will endure the same. US Soccer is falling apart, yet status quo is the approach?
> 
> I’ve heard the old, tired argument that the joint 16/17 is a weeding out or filtering process. It’s all nonsense. Kids hit stride at a wide range of ages and they need to play to improve.


I have two friends with 04's.  They are playing this year with almost their same team from last year as the U16/U17 is an 03 team with 2 04's occasionally playing with them.  The 04's are playing the same DA teams/rosters they played last year.  Coaching and training is pretty much the same. They get more playing time with the non-DA sub rules.  And they both made their high school varsity soccer teams as sophomores which they are enjoying.  It's a year of not playing in the DA league but what else is different?  Totally sincere when I ask why do you think they are getting the shaft?


----------



## lafalafa (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> I have two friends with 04's.  They are playing this year with almost their same team from last year as the U16/U17 is an 03 team with 2 04's occasionally playing with them.  The 04's are playing the same DA teams/rosters they played last year.  Coaching and training is pretty much the same. They get more playing time with the non-DA sub rules.  And they both made their high school varsity soccer teams as sophomores which they are enjoying.  It's a year of not playing in the DA league but what else is different?  Totally sincere when I ask why do you think they are getting the shaft?


Winning takes priority over development and the limited sub rules in DA are the main reason combo age groups are not that great for the younger age in the split.

Choices to staying for the training but not play much are why I've heard parents think the combo age groups are not great for the younger ages in the split.

Intially they think it will work out fine  but after training for 4x a week for months on end and only getting into a few games they start to get tired of not playing.  That and spending a week out of school to travel, sit on the bench mostly and maybe get into a single game out of a half or something.  Winning takes priority over development and with these huge rosters lots of prayers not get enough playing time in DA.  

Calendar year was adopted as the unform age groups but DA wants to continue to end around that because they think they know better?


----------



## SoCalFutBolCrazy (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> I have two friends with 04's.  They are playing this year with almost their same team from last year as the U16/U17 is an 03 team with 2 04's occasionally playing with them.  The 04's are playing the same DA teams/rosters they played last year.  Coaching and training is pretty much the same. They get more playing time with the non-DA sub rules.  And they both made their high school varsity soccer teams as sophomores which they are enjoying.  It's a year of not playing in the DA league but what else is different?  Totally sincere when I ask why do you think they are getting the shaft?





lafalafa said:


> Winning takes priority over development and the limited sub rules in DA are the main reason combo age groups are not that great for the younger age in the split.
> 
> Choices to staying for the training but not play much are why I've heard parents think the combo age groups are not great for the younger ages in the split.
> 
> ...


My son is currently an 05. Could anyone explain how this would pan out for the 05 next year?

Below is what I'm thinking would happen with this combo age group DA.

Current 04 non-DA ( NPL/DA2 ) kids of the DA club would be given the opportunity to play in the U16/17 DA ( assuming they are good enough for DA. )
Almost 90% of current 05 DA team becomes non-DA/NPL team next year. Only a few 05 kids (10%) gets into U16/17 DA.
These 90% 05 kids again get into DA in the 2021-22 year as U17s.

The concern I see here is the level of competition may degrade in this non-DA year. On the plus side, I see late developers catching up and may get a shot at DA when they are 17.

Please correct me if I'm missing anything here.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> I have two friends with 04's.  They are playing this year with almost their same team from last year as the U16/U17 is an 03 team with 2 04's occasionally playing with them.  The 04's are playing the same DA teams/rosters they played last year.  Coaching and training is pretty much the same. They get more playing time with the non-DA sub rules.  And they both made their high school varsity soccer teams as sophomores which they are enjoying.  It's a year of not playing in the DA league but what else is different?  Totally sincere when I ask why do you think they are getting the shaft?


It’s good that some clubs are managing it well with the U16s (2004s), but not all are. I know several DA clubs put most of their 04s in NPL and are playing the 04s they pulled up to DA. I applaud the effort, but there are a number of DA clubs out there that have taken on 04s for the combined age group, which means they don’t have the option to play in HS and other leagues, and too many of those 2004s are sitting game after game without alternatives.

US Soccer should step in and separate the age groups. It is clear that too many clubs out there aren’t interested enough in development. Results are the priority. But US Soccer‘s decision to continue to allow it isn’t surprising.  As lafalafa suggests, the sub rules are indicative of their lack of support for real development. A league that has the word ”development” in it actually limits subs to 5 per game. Every single game there are 2 rostered players that cannot play. Why? What is the value of that? It does nothing more than create a more challenging coaching environment and it sends the wrong message to directors, coaches, and players.


----------



## foreveryoung (Dec 9, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> It’s good that some clubs are managing it well with the U16s (2004s), but not all are. I know several DA clubs put most of their 04s in NPL and are playing the 04s they pulled up to DA. I applaud the effort, but there are a number of DA clubs out there that have taken on 04s for the combined age group, which means they don’t have the option to play in HS and other leagues, and too many of those 2004s are sitting game after game without alternatives.
> 
> US Soccer should step in and separate the age groups. It is clear that too many clubs out there aren’t interested enough in development. Results are the priority. But US Soccer‘s decision to continue to allow it isn’t surprising.  As lafalafa suggests, the sub rules are indicative of their lack of support for real development. A league that has the word ”development” in it actually limits subs to 5 per game. Every single game there are 2 rostered players that cannot play. Why? What is the value of that? It does nothing more than create a more challenging coaching environment and it sends the wrong message to directors, coaches, and players.


Yes in these examples the clubs have basically treated the U16/17 age group as a single age group for U17.   So then I wonder why all the clubs wouldn't just do this?


----------



## foreveryoung (Dec 9, 2019)

SoCalFutBolCrazy said:


> My son is currently an 05. Could anyone explain how this would pan out for the 05 next year?
> 
> Below is what I'm thinking would happen with this combo age group DA.
> 
> ...


This is what two 04's I know have experienced this year.  I think it depends on the club as some have noted here.  The level of competition in league play may be a little less than the year before not drastically less.   Add in more freedom to play tournaments and high school soccer.  And I think you could make an argument for development with more playing time and more opportunity to play creatively.


----------



## carla hinkle (Dec 9, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> Confirmed notes from last night's Winter Showcase Presentation:  For 2020-2021:
> U13 Season (08s): is on.  Will not participate in Showcase but encouraged to participate in outside competitions.  DA expanding that list of approved tournaments, etc.
> as it has been said, U16/17 will remain a combo year.
> Two-tier will not expand to multiple age groups.
> ...


What was the rationale given for running the boys and the girls programs differently? I would think it would make sense to have the same age group divisions for boys & girls.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> Yes in these examples the clubs have basically treated the U16/17 age group as a single age group for U17.   So then I wonder why all the clubs wouldn't just do this?


Good question. I guess that’s the point though. Eliminate the question at the US Soccer level and split the age group. Sometimes you have to help those that won’t help themselves. Combined age groups don’t exist overseas for a reason, it’s because they don’t help the players.

I’ve seen the aftermath of the combined age group for years. Its never been good for overall player development. Too many players get limited time. Some because of lack of quality, but many simply because they have an older kid in front of them that answers the call better right now because of size, strength, and maturity. Sometimes a younger player will play because they are fortunate enough to play a position where there isn‘t as much depth with the older players even if other younger players in other positions are as good or better because the team is deep in the position.


----------



## foreveryoung (Dec 9, 2019)

SBFDad said:


> Good question. I guess that’s the point though. Eliminate the question at the US Soccer level and split the age group. Sometimes you have to help those that won’t help themselves. Combined age groups don’t exist overseas for a reason, it’s because they don’t help the players.
> 
> I’ve seen the aftermath of the combined age group for years. Its never been good for overall player development. Too many players get limited time. Some because of lack of quality, but many simply because they have an older kid in front of them that answers the call better right now because of size, strength, and maturity. Sometimes a younger player will play because they are fortunate enough to play a position where there isn‘t as much depth with the older players even if other younger players in other positions are as good or better because the team is deep in the position.


Agree.  The parents could also just decline the DA roster spot and request to play NPL, correct?  If most of the parents of 05's commit to doing that it will happen organically as well.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> Agree.  The parents could also just decline the DA roster spot and request to play NPL, correct?  If most of the parents of 05's commit to doing that it will happen organically as well.


I suppose an 05 could decline the offer to play DA, but it might harm their standing with the club. Also, I would expect any club trying to play an 05 up next year in DA will tell his parents what they want to hear about expected playing time, promotion, etc... Yet somehow DA rosters are littered this year with 04s that are playing "up" in DA but seeing very little time. Not just here in SoCal, but across the country.

I understand your previous point about NPL giving them an opportunity to play HS or other things for that year, but that's a one-off for the U16 year only. Most DA-quality players will start DA at U13 and play thru U18/19. The fact that NPL is optional for clubs means it's not a viable solution. It's a decent stop-gap for those clubs with the foresight and willingness to do it.


----------



## Raakjoer (Dec 9, 2019)

foreveryoung said:


> I have two friends with 04's.  They are playing this year with almost their same team from last year as the U16/U17 is an 03 team with 2 04's occasionally playing with them.  The 04's are playing the same DA teams/rosters they played last year.  Coaching and training is pretty much the same. They get more playing time with the non-DA sub rules.  And they both made their high school varsity soccer teams as sophomores which they are enjoying.  It's a year of not playing in the DA league but what else is different?  Totally sincere when I ask why do you think they are getting the shaft?


If you look at a team like RSL for example, there is no NPL option, etc. So, lets say the current u16s take precedence for the 20-21 roster then add in a few new u17 roster additions - that doesn't leave much room for the current U15 boys. The majority of them will be cut just because there isnt room.


----------



## justneededaname (Dec 9, 2019)

I have an 05 DA player and I am looking forward to the bye year for him for two reasons. He is a multi-sport kid and he is a young 05, so in 8th grade. In his case, the timing of the bye year is perfect. 

He will get the bye year in 9th grade. The first year in high school and an excellent time to get the high school experience. 

He is fortunate enough to have been able to keep managing multiple sports these past few years: DA soccer, club basketball, middle school football, basketball, and volleyball. He will get a year to do them all at a high school level (well, not soccer and basketball), and then get to decide what he wants to do in the future. It is another year to mature physically and mentally before having to make a decision on a single sport.

He is also applying to a school that has a good-to-excellent soccer program and a coach that hates the DA, so being eligible to play for the school can't hurt the application process as well.

The majority of the 05 DA players are sophomores next year, so this perspective probably doesn't apply to many.


----------



## SoCalFutBolCrazy (Dec 9, 2019)

At this point, I'm only considering the views who are all-in into soccer and aspiring to become pro/semi-pro or a top NSCAA Div I as this what the DA is for. So I won't buy the HS play argument or a year for creative play.
Kids at this level should be doing that on Fridays or Sundays during the season.
So all in all not very convincing argumets for benefits of non-DA play for 1 year!

This is where I think US Soccer is falling short in enforcement. They should strictly mandate 50% of the U16/17 game day roster to be 04s. If not clubs should be relegated, That would solve a lot of this problem.

Without this I foresee separate pathways for MLS clubs vs non-MLS clubs coming soon.


----------



## SBFDad (Dec 9, 2019)

SoCalFutBolCrazy said:


> This is where I think US Soccer is falling short in enforcement. They should strictly mandate 50% of the U16/17 game day roster to be 04s. If not clubs should be relegated, That would solve a lot of this problem.


While I agree with the sentiment here, it is clear that US Soccer won’t support something like this. There is supposedly a 25% start rule in DA already that goes unenforced. And while I would support a 50% rule (that is actually enforced), I believe the age split is more critical. Continuing to have U17s play against an even larger contingent of U16s, due to a 50% play rule for the youngers, will then begin to set back the development of the U17s. An age split and a 50% play rule applied across all age groups should both should happen.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 9, 2019)

carla hinkle said:


> What was the rationale given for running the boys and the girls programs differently? I would think it would make sense to have the same age group divisions for boys & girls.


I do not know the answer to that. I also don't assume that there is a rationale.  lol. 
I have the info without explanation and am only left to assumptions and aggravation.


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> I do not know the answer to that. I also don't assume that there is a rationale.  lol.
> I have the info without explanation and am only left to assumptions and aggravation.


Reddevildad, thanks for the info from the winter showcase. Can you expand on the biobanding event in silver lakes?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 12, 2019)

Kante said:


> Reddevildad, thanks for the info from the winter showcase. Can you expand on the biobanding event in silver lakes?


Not 100% sure but here's what I know:
In April, Lonestar, Texans, FC Dallas and some other TX clubs participated in a "bio-banding event."  They played 2 or 3 games according to their bio-banded age.  I don't know if it was bio-banded teams vs bio-banded teams... or a bio-banded U15 team vs an actual U15 team... 
The Silverlakes event is the second one and I assume it will be similar.  
The clubs participating are: SD Surf (Boys & Girls), Real So Cal (Boys & Girls), LAG (Girls), San Jose (Girls), LAFC (Boys), Pats (Boys).
The dates are January 11-12th.

I assume everyone is familiar with bio-banding and the initiative so I didn't address that.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 12, 2019)

19/20 DA Cup Finals: Swope Soccer Village in Kansas City
April 29-May 4
Regional Showcases at same location at 18-19 season. 
Summer Showcase and Playoffs- Locations TBA in early 2020. 
Late Developer Initiative was also expanded to all age groups now... boys & girls.  Clubs can have max 2 players playing down. (Khamis-Roche Method score of -0.5 or greater).


----------



## Kante (Dec 12, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> 19/20 DA Cup Finals: Swope Soccer Village in Kansas City
> April 29-May 4
> Regional Showcases at same location at 18-19 season.
> Summer Showcase and Playoffs- Locations TBA in early 2020.
> Late Developer Initiative was also expanded to all age groups now... boys & girls.  Clubs can have max 2 players playing down. (Khamis-Roche Method score of -0.5 or greater).


so your understanding is that the late developer rule allowing up to 2 players per team, play one age group down, is now applicable from u13 thru u19?

(for reference, in 2019-20, the late developer rule had only been for u14 and u15 age groups)


----------



## texanincali (Dec 13, 2019)

I am hearing differently, directly from a non-MLS DA Director.  He tells me they will split U16 and U-17.  He’s been known to not be correct sometimes - so I’ll wait for a better source.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 13, 2019)

texanincali said:


> I am hearing differently, directly from a non-MLS DA Director.  He tells me they will split U16 and U-17.  He’s been known to not be correct sometimes - so I’ll wait for a better source.


We were told in FL that the 16/17 is not splitting and no talk whatsoever about changing birth year.  I have it in writing in the document given out.  Can they change their mind, sure?  Is that likely? No.   Should they?  I don't care to debate because I can't impact that conversation. lol.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 13, 2019)

Kante said:


> so your understanding is that the late developer rule allowing up to 2 players per team, play one age group down, is now applicable from u13 thru u19?
> 
> (for reference, in 2019-20, the late developer rule had only been for u14 and u15 age groups)


Yes, "Late Developer Initiative expanded to include all age groups and genders."  Max 2 players per birth year can play down.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 13, 2019)

texanincali said:


> I am hearing differently, directly from a non-MLS DA Director.  He tells me they will split U16 and U-17.  He’s been known to not be correct sometimes - so I’ll wait for a better source.


----------



## texanincali (Dec 13, 2019)

This is good news to me.  Like I said below, the Director I heard this from is often times wrong.


----------



## Dargle (Dec 13, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> We were told in FL that the 16/17 is not splitting and *no talk whatsoever about changing birth year*.


Is that in reference to the rumors floating around about a change back to calendar year generally for all USSF affiliated clubs/leagues or was there a separate rumor relating to change in DA specifically?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 13, 2019)

Dargle said:


> Is that in reference to the rumors floating around about a change back to calendar year generally for all USSF affiliated clubs/leagues or was there a separate rumor relating to change in DA specifically?


Reference to the rumors floating of going back to September-August or whenever it was.  Nothing said of that. Doesn't mean it isn't a possibility.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 14, 2019)

RedDevilDad said:


> View attachment 6003


Until they are published on the ussda site nothing is final.  Slides have come out every year in Dec for the past 3 and then there are changes in the end sometime minor adjustments.  Once people find out the tentative plans they start to voice there opinions so change can/does happen.  Feb/March we should see what the 20/21 actually season parameters will be.

That slide seems incomplete to me as USL amateur is not noted for Zone 3.  You don't have to be professional or in college to play USL at u19+ or younger like players are doing now.


----------



## seuss (Dec 14, 2019)

texanincali said:


> This is good news to me.  Like I said below, the Director I heard this from is often times wrong.


Just curious. 
What’s good about keeping 16/17 together?


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 14, 2019)

seuss said:


> Just curious.
> What’s good about keeping 16/17 together?


Yes, I am straining to see any goodness at all from that.  Even if your kid is a strong 05 and is likely to make the U17 next year, having a U16 team would be a positive.


----------



## texanincali (Dec 14, 2019)

seuss said:


> Just curious.
> What’s good about keeping 16/17 together?


Just a personal opinion, from an elite talent development standpoint.  I get that a seller are age group helps non-MLS clubs as they can generate more money from dues.  From an MLS Academy standpoint, I think having the elite U16s playing with the U17s is a good thing.


----------



## seuss (Dec 14, 2019)

texanincali said:


> Just a personal opinion, from an elite talent development standpoint.  I get that a seller are age group helps non-MLS clubs as they can generate more money from dues.  From an MLS Academy standpoint, I think having the elite U16s playing with the U17s is a good thing.


So why not just have the “elite” 16’s play up? 
I’m just not understanding the motive for wanting to exclude a lot of good players who aren’t finished developing.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Dec 15, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Until they are published on the ussda site nothing is final.  Slides have come out every year in Dec for the past 3 and then there are changes in the end sometime minor adjustments.  Once people find out the tentative plans they start to voice there opinions so change can/does happen.  Feb/March we should see what the 20/21 actually season parameters will be.


Yeah, agree.


----------



## Husky13 (Jan 5, 2020)

texanincali said:


> Just a personal opinion, from an elite talent development standpoint.  I get that a seller are age group helps non-MLS clubs as they can generate more money from dues.  From an MLS Academy standpoint, I think having the elite U16s playing with the U17s is a good thing.


Appears that this poster believes his son is “elite” and he wants as much of the competition shut out before they physically develop and/or get better than his son.  Wrong?


----------



## jpeter (Jan 6, 2020)

Husky13 said:


> Appears that this poster believes his son is “elite” and he wants as much of the competition shut out before they physically develop and/or get better than his son. Wrong?


Didn't get that out what was posted.

MLS academies pretty much expect players with ambitions to play beyond academy at a higher level to play up why there with the academy teams.  So for example this seasons 2003 are playing  u18/19 or have already moved on to USL or other places  instead of DA u16/17.

DA has a competitive lifespan and it varies per player.


----------



## seuss (Jan 6, 2020)

jpeter said:


> Didn't get that out what was posted.
> 
> MLS academies pretty much expect players with ambitions to play beyond academy at a higher level to play up why there with the academy teams.  So for example this seasons 2003 are playing  u18/19 or have already moved on to USL or other places  instead of DA u16/17.
> 
> DA has a competitive lifespan and it varies per player.


Current galaxy 18/19 roster is filled with ‘02 players. Not sure what you are talking about.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 6, 2020)

seuss said:


> Current galaxy 18/19 roster is filled with ‘02 players. Not sure what you are talking about.


Only (10)  2002 play regularly and some don't even start, there has always been 6 or more 2003 rostered per game, sometimes the majority of the team is 2003 just like for the DA cup playoffs.

3x of the 2003 have already played with Galaxy 2 USL team & train with them.

(10) 2003 played on the u18/19 in the critical playoff game vs Dallas last time out


			Game Report | U.S. Soccer Development Academy
		


What are you talking about again?


----------



## texanincali (Jan 6, 2020)

Husky13 said:


> Appears that this poster believes his son is “elite” and he wants as much of the competition shut out before they physically develop and/or get better than his son.  Wrong?


Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but fair play to you.

Give me your definition of elite.  From there I will determine if this debate is even worth my time.

I’ll give you mine ahead of time.  I think we, as a country have produced maybe (being generous) 10 elite soccer players.  The very essence of what we are discussing is one of the reasons I believe this number is so low.


----------



## Husky13 (Jan 7, 2020)

texanincali said:


> Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but fair play to you.
> 
> Give me your definition of elite.  From there I will determine if this debate is even worth my time.
> 
> I’ll give you mine ahead of time.  I think we, as a country have produced maybe (being generous) 10 elite soccer players.  The very essence of what we are discussing is one of the reasons I believe this number is so low.


The definition of 'elite' on an absolute/overall basis isn't the relevant point here (but I agree the U.S. has produced very few truly elite players).  

My primary point was that I am straining to find any logical reason why you believe that it is "good news" that the DA is retaining the single, combined U17/U16 age group.  The only explanation I could find was the somewhat twisted theory that I provided in my last post.  Otherwise, I see no reason why any rational person would call this "good news" (other than clubs who don't want to spend more $$ for a separate U16 age group team).  I understand that weeding out players is part of a competitive process for identifying elite players, but it makes zero sense (to me) to weed out nearly 50% of the players at an age when kids are going through huge growth changes (with some physically developing early and others later).  
Not to repeat earlier posts, but late physically developing players may have more upside in terms of the skill they have had to develop to survive/succeed as a player as well as their late growth upside.  But, in a "win now" DA environment, many of those players will be cut in favor of kids who grew early and can help produce victories in the short term (for lazy coaches who don't know how to win any other way).  This isn't just theory - I am already seeing kids who were highly regarded early, based largely on early physical advantages, who are starting to flatten out because they don't have the skill set to succeed when their physical advantage dwindles, but many of these kids will likely survive the initial U16/17 cut because of their reputation while other, emerging players won't get the chance to develop and be seen at the DA level.


----------



## texanincali (Jan 7, 2020)

First, (@Husky13) this is a really good post and I don't think anyone could tell you that your opinion is wrong.  That said, there are multiple angles to this dilemma and I think peoples position on the topic depend on the angle they take.  I'll do my best to lay out my opinion and reasoning as best I can.  Apologies in advance if some of these are wordy.  It's difficult to have this conversation in a forum versus speaking face to face.



Husky13 said:


> The definition of 'elite' on an absolute/overall basis isn't the relevant point here


For me, it is the focal point of what we are discussing and one of the main reasons why we have failed on a world stage for so long.  In the US, for the past 50 years, football has been an activity, a sport, a way to be outside and have fun while staying fit and being with friends.  In the rest of the world, football is a business that is vital to both economies and cultures.  In the US we used words like fun, participation, free play, scholarship, equal playing time, open subs, etc.  In other parts of the world they use terms like elite, world class, transfer fees, Champions League, promotion, relegation, staying up, going down, etc.  In my opinion, it is weird that a country that was built upon capitalistic views and doing anything to get ahead has such a socialistic view when it comes to youth sports.  I find it equally weird that the current societal views in Europe are opposite as their football culture.  Our youth development strategy needs to be designed around the really good players and everything should be aimed at getting those players to their maximum level.

I think first, we have to agree, or attempt to agree what purpose USSF and DA serves in the overall youth development in the US.  I don't think it is the job of the Federation to develop players.  I think that job belongs to each individual club and always should.  Just so you know, I can't stand MLS and I feel it is a disaster of a league, but its what we have and we somehow have to make it work.  Also, I want to make it clear that I am on record in this thread saying I have no issue with split age groups within non-MLS clubs.  I think each club should have a stated goal so any parent, player and coach can make an informed decision as to join or not.  If the goal is to put players in front of college coaches and have their players earn scholarships, that is perfectly fine.  They should be judged on how many players receive those scholarships versus how many don't.  

I feel MLS clubs should have one goal and one goal only...to produce the best professional players they can, some of which should become elite, which for me is in the XI in a perennial Champions League club.  When this is the stated goal, it is a giant game of risk/reward.  It is about identifying elite talent as early as possible and then providing the resources, training, competition, and many other things in order to get the most out of that talent.  To your point, when this is the stated goal, it means making difficult decisions and since we are talking about youth, it means some kids get the short end of the stick.  While there are absolutely examples of kids that didn't earn a spot on a combined U16/17 team that did become good players, they are not as common as people would like to believe.  



Husky13 said:


> (other than clubs who don't want to spend more $$ for a separate U16 age group team)


Why this may apply to MLS clubs who spend hundreds of thousands per year on each team trying to develop those few professionals, I don't think it applies to non-MLS clubs that generate revenue from dues.  I would think these clubs would love to have 2 separate teams that each pay annual dues.



Husky13 said:


> I understand that weeding out players is part of a competitive process for identifying elite players


I don't think weeding out players has anything to do with identifying elite players.  I think elite players are pretty easily identified on their own without any noise around them.  I do however, think that weeding out player is part of the further development of those elite players.  These elite players need to be surrounded by as many like minded, like skilled, like bodied players as possible.  They need to be pushed every minute of every training session knowing their spot can be taken at any moment.  I don't think "waiting" for a player to develop physically, or get better technically is worth risking the development of a potentially elite player in a team environment.  At 10-15 years of age, I think we are on the same page, after that is where I think we start to disagree.  



Husky13 said:


> Not to repeat earlier posts, but late physically developing players may have more upside in terms of the skill they have had to develop to survive/succeed as a player as well as their late growth upside. But, in a "win now" DA environment, many of those players will be cut in favor of kids who grew early and can help produce victories in the short term *(for lazy coaches who don't know how to win any other way).*


You have a very good point here and one that most will all agree with.  However, I don't view this issue as one that is combined or not combined age group related.  This is an issue with our current set up and structure.  Most of these clubs have to win now to stay relevant and in order to continue to generate revenue by bringing in players.  There are undoubtedly late bloomers that are cut in favor of early bloomers, but this has been happening in every sport for a very long time, its not something new.  Where do we go wrong?  I think its in multiple areas.  First, our clubs do a terrible job of communicating openly and honestly with players and families.  This is out of fear of that revenue walking out the door.  Second, our parents in general are terrible at taking open, honest communication and making an informed decision with the information.  The second a coach sits a family down and says, "Listen, I think you are going to be a very good player.  However, due to your size, speed, athleticism it is difficult for you to compete at the level needed at this moment and I don't feel you will get the touches or playing time needed to develop properly.  I want you to continue to train with this team but we need to find games for you somewhere else" - the player and family leave and go try somewhere else.  Everyone is living in this middle ground that isn't good for anyone.  A small, late blooming player that truly has the mentality, soccer IQ and technique to become elite will not be hurt by learning how to dominate games at a level below DA for less than a year.  I would argue, it would probably even help them as compared to struggling to compete, getting on the ball, getting past players or defending in an environment in which they are physically inferior.  I think there is also a confidence aspect to this that needs to be considered.


----------



## texanincali (Jan 7, 2020)

continued...

Part of this issue is exacerbated by some of the stupid rules USSF has applied to the DA.  Part of this issue is down to coaches not being able to look past today when identifying talent.  Part of this issue is down to players and parents (mostly parents) that are impatient and don't want to hear the player they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on, may not turn out to be the greatest player in the world.

In short, our clubs and coaches are a huge issue when it comes to this, way more so than a combined U16/17 age group.

I am fine with the fact that I may hold a minority opinion here and I think its perfectly fine that there is disagreement on this topic.  There isn't necessarily a right or wrong here and each players situation may be different.  It is incumbent on coaches and clubs getting better at identifying unique qualities in players and it is incumbent on parents being more realistic as to where their son or daughter really fits in the talent spectrum.

I've been all over the place with this post, but will leave with a story around a conversation I had with a top European Academy Director a number of years ago.  He said to me, the longer we take to choose which player(s) we are going to pour our resources in to try and get to the first team, the farther we get behind in that process.  He mentioned that they miss on players way more often than they hit on players.  However, it that world, all it takes is to hit on one player and it could result in a $50M-$100M windfall.  When that occurs, the blow is softened on the players that were mis-identified.  This philosophy is quite possibly lost on American parents, especially those that are unfamiliar with the inter-workings of the global game.  To give you a better understanding, the latest discussion in Europe is clubs questioning the need for a U19 age group.  The thought is if a kid isn't identified as a potential professional after their U17 year and doesn't have the ability to yet play in the Reserve team, is the added expense of that U19 team worth it.

From a personal standpoint, I think there is a place for any kid that wants to play youth soccer in the US.  That isn't always the case in Europe where the playing population is drastically reduced as you climb the age ladder.  College soccer will always be here and it will always be a great way for good players to get their education while playing the sport they love.  There are clubs that should use this as their primary goal and not worry about competing with MLS clubs.  

Finally, what would I do?  Or what would I like to see?  I want to see an environment beginning at the U16 level that has increased pressure on individual performance.  I would like to see our Fed invest some of the millions they have into analytical concepts in which every player knows their key stats in every game.  Running distance, pass completion %, turnover %, shots, shots on goal, forward passes, duels, heat maps, etc.  Maybe they can only afford to do this with MLS clubs, but it could be added data combined with the eye test that we aren't that great at yet.   How do we expect to identify elite talent at 14, 15, 16, 17 years old when 99.9% of coaches in the US have NEVER seen what elite 14, 15, 16, 17 year old talent looks like.  I would like to see freedom of movement allowed by the Federation and clubs with some financial incentive involved.  If a small kid at U16 can't get into the U16/17 team at LAFC, why do we restrict San Jose coming in for that kid and saying, hey we will take you and put you in school and board you?  Why couldn't Seattle, who is in need of CM players at U17 offer to pay Portland $25k to take a player that is 3rd or 4th in line because they happen to be stacked at CM players in that age?  There are so many options, none of which I have ever heard anyone talking about seriously.  

In the end, I want elite talent developed in the US.  I want to compete for World Cup titles and I want to see 5 US born players on the field in a Champions League final.  In order to get individual players to that point, choices have to be made, feelings will be hurt, lessons will be learned and US Soccer will be better off for it.  Could it be at the expense of some kids at U16 that got shafted, I guess so, and that is the part of it that sucks.  

Apologies for the lengthy response, but believe it or not, I still don't feel like I have properly conveyed my stance the exact way I would like to.


----------



## messy (Jan 8, 2020)

texanincali said:


> continued...
> 
> Part of this issue is exacerbated by some of the stupid rules USSF has applied to the DA.  Part of this issue is down to coaches not being able to look past today when identifying talent.  Part of this issue is down to players and parents (mostly parents) that are impatient and don't want to hear the player they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on, may not turn out to be the greatest player in the world.
> 
> ...


Pretty good stuff. I especially like the line about how our coaches haven't seen what real elite talent looks like. I do see freedom of movement though. I know U15s and 16s from CA and elsewhere getting scholarships at Barca AZ, RSL Academy and elsewhere.


----------



## Husky13 (Jan 8, 2020)

texanincali said:


> continued...


I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post.  I have to apologize about the snarky interpretation in my previous post.  Your post was well thought out and I appreciate the time you took to share those thoughts.  I actually think we agree far more than we disagree, particularly on philosophy, although we perhaps have different approaches when it comes to how to execute on some of this.

Here are some nuances where my views may (or may not) differ slightly, to inject into the discussion:

*  Adding a U16 age group isn't just about giving younger/late developing players a fair chance in my view.  It is about preserving more lottery tickets, because during this age players move up and down quite a bit in the "rankings" because (1) kids grow or don't grow, and (2) more qualities become necessary to succeed in soccer as the competition level rises (intelligence/decision-making, etc.) and coaches in the U.S. have proven time and again that they aren't good at spotting or valuing those qualities in players at early ages.  With respect to younger/late developing players, I would also add that in some cases these players aren't just cases of players who have an equal shot at succeeding but aren't getting that shot due to RAE - rather, at risk of repeating my earlier post, some of these players have more upside over time because they have been forced to develop those other qualities just to survive.  Those are lottery tickets that may be worth preserving even more than the average prospect.

*  I have always held the same view you shared in terms of kids who aren't quite good enough (or physically ready) being better served playing at the "B team" level.  It is far better for a player to be a leader on a B team than to be one of the last players off the bench on the A team.  But - this might be the most important point of my post - adding a U16 age group is more like creating a B team for those lottery tickets to continue to develop, while merely having a U16/17 age group is more like the "last player off the bench" scenario.  Why?  Because, as a practical matter, what most of these DA clubs are doing is creating player pools of 28-30 kids for U16/17 (some, like LA Galaxy, even more), and then allowing their lottery tickets to languish and not develop further because they are getting little to no game experience during a critical year. 

I completely appreciate the EU approach of trying to hit on lottery tickets.  Youth soccer has provided many tremendous experiences both for my son and for me as a parent, and among those is five (to date) overseas trips for soccer at the highest levels where I have been able to speak with knowledgeable premier club representatives, scouts and parents about all of this.  I would ask this: if you want to win the lottery, is the better strategy to have one ticket where you have to fill in all seven numbers, or to have ten tickets with two of the numbers already filled in on each?  My analogy isn't perfect, but it is close.  

Lastly, although I think I would still have the same general perspective on all of this, perhaps my feelings wouldn't be quite so strong if U.S. coaches were good at identifying longer-term prospects at early ages.  The data pretty clearly shows that U.S. coaches and scouts are absolutely terrible at this.  Do we truly believe that the U.S. hasn't produced many elite soccer players because we don't have the talent pool?  I know there are other factors (e.g. growing up in a stronger soccer culture), but I suspect the biggest factor is that coaches value the wrong qualities in identifying their prospects at young ages, and many of those prospects predictably flatten out with age and never turn into anything.  I am seeing that over and over with MLS academies in real time.  Kids that were identified at age 12 who looked better in large part because they were bigger/faster/stronger at that age and succeeded because of those advantages, who are heavily invested in by MLS academies, but who start to flatten out at 15 because the physical gap dwindles and they don't have the other qualities needed to maintain that performance gap over other players.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 8, 2020)

Calendar year straight across without the combo age groups is what was recommended but ussda has decided so far to do things differently.   One of these days they will wise up and get it right.

DA in reality is a deadend for majority of the players as it stands now.   Only a small % will have the speed, skill, drive to succeed at the next level, < 10% is my guess.  

Not even sure what the ratio of college mens players who used to play DA but it's not as great as most seem to think and there are potentially large numbers of former U15 DA boys players who don't even end up playing college ball or at the D1 level.

What are most players really getting out of DA?  3-5 years of good training, competition with a lot of travel.


----------



## aong cangkol (Jan 9, 2020)

texanincali said:


> continued...
> 
> From a personal standpoint, I think there is a place for any kid that wants to play youth soccer in the US.  That isn't always the case in Europe where the playing population is drastically reduced as you climb the age ladder.  College soccer will always be here and it will always be a great way for good players to get their education while playing the sport they love.  There are clubs that should use this as their primary goal and not worry about competing with MLS clubs.


I am intrigued by your statement here. It is something that I have heard from friends and relatives in Europe and comparing it with my own experience with my kids in US. It is unique in US that kids older than 10 with 0% chance of playing pro continue to train and play in competitive soccer. Parents appear to have an obsession about it as well. I suspect it is caused by the hope that their kids can play in high school then possibly help them with college application (not talking about scholarship, more like good grades+activity for good D3 college, MIT as an extreme example).
Nobody care about high school sports and college in Europe (maybe not even exist). EU kids who have no chance of going pro or Olympic will stop training seriously after 10 in Europe. By 10 yr old, any coach would know that 90-95% kids have no chance. After that, training and coaching only relevant to 5-10% of playing population (even less I think).  Australia also identify Olympic hopes at elementary schools.
In the end, US is a blessing for regular kids with no hope to become pro but can still play competitive soccer until high school. It is not unique to soccer, my kids also swim competitively and parents obsession is the same even with the knowledge that our kids has 0% chance to swim in college/pro.  This is how expensive clubs can thrive in US, because regular kids are willing to pay dues. 
Does it hurt elite soccer players? Maybe, I do not know the answer. It does not hurt US Olympic swimmers, though.


----------



## focomoso (Jan 9, 2020)

aong cangkol said:


> I have heard from friends and relatives in Europe and comparing it with my own experience with my kids in US. It is unique in US that kids older than 10 with 0% chance of playing pro continue to train and play in competitive soccer.


I've posted this before, but this is exactly my experience with high-level soccer in Poland (where my wife and kids are citizens). Europeans know soccer much better than Americans for the most part and know very early whether a kid has any potential. The idea that anyone would pay for a "flight 3" level club would seem silly in Europe. If your kid is great, they will get picked up by a local club / academy. If they're anything but great, they play in their school and out on the yard and have fun.


----------



## watfly (Jan 9, 2020)

focomoso said:


> I've posted this before, but this is exactly my experience with high-level soccer in Poland (where my wife and kids are citizens). Europeans know soccer much better than Americans for the most part and know very early whether a kid has any potential. The idea that anyone would pay for a "flight 3" level club would seem silly in Europe. If your kid is great, they will get picked up by a local club / academy. If they're anything but great, they play in their school and out on the yard and have fun.


It's the recreationalization (my made up word) of competitive soccer in the US.  Some clubs go 8 deep in boys teams at certain ages, so many that they get close to running out of colors to name them.  I would estimate that less than 10% of club soccer is actually "competitive" soccer. 

Whereas, at the same age US clubs have teams that go 8 deep, kids in England are being castoff by academies.








						Premier League Castoffs, Starting Over at Age 11 (Published 2017)
					

England’s soccer machine discards preteen players, and their dreams, with ease and efficiency every year. But not every player, or every family, is willing to give up.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## texanincali (Jan 10, 2020)

watfly said:


> It's the recreationalization (my made up word) of competitive soccer in the US. Some clubs go 8 deep in boys teams at certain ages, so many that they get close to running out of colors to name them. I would estimate that less than 10% of club soccer is actually "competitive" soccer.


It is uniquely American, for sure.  I don't have any issue with the amount of players and teams that participate.  Football is a great sport to keep kids active and out of trouble, learning life lessons on work ethic, teamwork, and competition.  They worry for me comes when the competitive lines are blurred and the focus shifts away from developing the top end players.  

The NYT article posted above is fantastic and anyone not familiar with the youth environment in other countries can get a better understanding just how competitive it is.  While we teach coaches to no put pressure on players, the rest of the world has a built in youth culture that organically is pressure filled.  In my opinion (I've been wrong many times), this is one of the largest separating factors between the US and other countries.  

Don't get me wrong, I think the safety net culture we have is great for the vast majority of youth players, but it doesn't do many favors for the really elite players.  There are so many safety nets in place, no matter how many times a youth player falls, they are always caught.  Not going to become a European pro, there is always MLS and USL.  Not going to make it as a pro in an American league, there is always D1 college teams.  If you can't get into a D1 college team, you can play D2, D3, NAIA or JuCo.  This is great and it is what keeps so many kids in the game, but it is not the structure and pressure packed environment that will produce a world class player.  

Good conversations in here.  It is great to see people with different opinions.


----------



## texanincali (Jan 16, 2020)

Had no idea this was coming when I posted the info above.  I am sure some won't be happy with it if/when it occurs, but I think you can see the direction this is headed.  I am not sure where I stand on this.  Some positives, but some negatives as well.

Sorry, don't know how to embed a tweet.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1217861009366536199


----------



## Husky13 (Jan 16, 2020)

This was to be expected, several of us have speculated this would happen during sideline soccer chatter.  The USL announced an Academy (HS U15-U19) league earlier this season, when that announcement came out it looked like U18/U19 teams might become redundant.  MLS clubs aren't in the business of developing kids for college.  The USL Academy league makes the whole structure look more like a pyramid.  Now, you have a full U15 DA team, a U16/17 DA team (so, basically 1/2 of a team per age group in theory), and the USL Academy team (accelerated U15-U17 players mixed in with some U18/U19 players).  Plus, kids promoted to the USL now don't have to play against full grown men.  

The part of this that I continue to disagree with is the absence of a U16 team, because kids are going through so many physical growth spurts/developmental changes at that age and it doesn't make sense (to me) to shave half of the kids after U15 when your data about those players is so incomplete.  Plus, many teams are heavily weighting their U16/U17 teams towards almost all U17s in order to win because of the DA's Tier 1/2 structure, which increases the emphasis on winning and motivates coaches to use shortcuts.  Or, impose minimum playing time requirements for U16s on the U16/U17 squads to eliminate this coaching behavior ….


----------



## watfly (Jan 16, 2020)

texanincali said:


> Had no idea this was coming when I posted the info above.  I am sure some won't be happy with it if/when it occurs, but I think you can see the direction this is headed.  I am not sure where I stand on this.  Some positives, but some negatives as well.
> 
> Sorry, don't know how to embed a tweet.
> 
> ...


Interesting in light of the fact that DA just split 18/19 into A and B tiers, which it was speculated that it was done to appease the MLS DA.  Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't this effectively eliminate the purpose of the DA tiered program (assuming its true)?


----------



## jpeter (Jan 17, 2020)

texanincali said:


> Had no idea this was coming when I posted the info above.  I am sure some won't be happy with it if/when it occurs, but I think you can see the direction this is headed.  I am not sure where I stand on this.  Some positives, but some negatives as well.
> 
> Sorry, don't know how to embed a tweet.
> 
> ...


Yup like I have said multiple times in this thread.

DA has a useful lifespan for players but once you get to a certain  point it's time to move on, u19 is that point or even sooner like u17 if your really a top prospect.  

 There are few U19's  as things are now anyway because the mls clubs known these players have had the opportunity to play DA for what 5 yrs already and there not suddenly going to have some big upside while essentially playing down against younger players their last red shirt type of season.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 17, 2020)

watfly said:


> Interesting in light of the fact that DA just split 18/19 into A and B tiers, which it was speculated that it was done to appease the MLS DA.  Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't this effectively eliminate the purpose of the DA tiered program (assuming its true)?


Ture and already being done by some.

Tier's are a mashup mostly for MLS  &  should be strictly based on results so not the best currently but don't see how phasing out u19 makes much of any difference?

U16/17 is already tiered behind the scenes &  with the DA cup anyway.  U18 more of a hard tier, so guess those players will have a single year remaining instead of two?  Do they really need a do over for the limited numbers that still haven't moved on or went to college already?


----------



## RedDevilDad (Jan 17, 2020)

jpeter said:


> DA has a useful lifespan for players but once you get to a certain  point it's time to move on, u19 is that point or even sooner like u17 if your really a top prospect.


I think this applies to the "lower end" as well.  I think some kids who have no intention or chance of playing college soccer or earning a needed scholarship should also bail.  Go be a super-star at HS.  Can easily go from a HS team to a JC then you now have options.  Can buckle down and be ready academically and/or athletically to finish at a 4 year or at minimum you are getting athlete perks at a JC and having fun. 

I tell my kid if you ever say the minimum of I don't want to play college soccer than the DA isn't the program for you.  Too much sacrificed for just being a good player.  Other ways to achieve that.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 17, 2020)

Husky13 said:


> This was to be expected, several of us have speculated this would happen during sideline soccer chatter.  The USL announced an Academy (HS U15-U19) league earlier this season, when that announcement came out it looked like U18/U19 teams might become redundant.  MLS clubs aren't in the business of developing kids for college.  The USL Academy league makes the whole structure look more like a pyramid.  Now, you have a full U15 DA team, a U16/17 DA team (so, basically 1/2 of a team per age group in theory), and the USL Academy team (accelerated U15-U17 players mixed in with some U18/U19 players).  Plus, kids promoted to the USL now don't have to play against full grown men.
> 
> The part of this that I continue to disagree with is the absence of a U16 team, because kids are going through so many physical growth spurts/developmental changes at that age and it doesn't make sense (to me) to shave half of the kids after U15 when your data about those players is so incomplete.  Plus, many teams are heavily weighting their U16/U17 teams towards almost all U17s in order to win because of the DA's Tier 1/2 structure, which increases the emphasis on winning and motivates coaches to use shortcuts.  Or, impose minimum playing time requirements for U16s on the U16/U17 squads to eliminate this coaching behavior ….


Straight single calendar year takes care of that and hopefully DA gets enough feedback to finally use that across all the groups like what has been recommended by ussf.  Phasing out u19 makes that one step closer IMO.


----------

