# Age Band Change (again)?



## timmyh (Dec 10, 2019)

Rumors of US Soccer going back to "school year" instead of "calendar year" in 2020...

https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulling-age-group-changes/?fbclid=IwAR23TsE_M0h8UBsU7xW_5fGrJKH0dT7FL5Fk_7j5k5OEunFtq32K7UlMWW8

Would be another major shakeup.  

For what it's worth, I think everyone admits that the initial change to calendar year was a mistake.  Soccer in the US is losing players at the grassroots level, and I think not being able to band together with classmates is a big reason for the dip in the number of players sticking with soccer.  Going to calendar year in order to benefit the .01% who compete internationally hasn't really impacted much as those girls were all playing up a year anyway.  But is going back to the way it was worth the impact it's going to have on teams that have spent the past couple years getting settled after the initial change?


----------



## timmyh (Dec 10, 2019)

timmyh said:


> Rumors of US Soccer going back to "school year" instead of "calendar year" in 2020...
> 
> https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulling-age-group-changes/?fbclid=IwAR23TsE_M0h8UBsU7xW_5fGrJKH0dT7FL5Fk_7j5k5OEunFtq32K7UlMWW8
> 
> ...


From the article...


There’s a rumor going around that US Soccer is mulling a change from its current birth year cutoff that was implemented in the fall of 2016. 

We haven’t seen anything from US Soccer yet though. Our guess is that this will be made official during the annual US Soccer Convention in January.

Cincy SC’s official take (not trying to speak for an individual coach or parent though) is this:

The change to birth year in 2016 was a mistake and should be corrected.
The birth year cutoff is challenging socially at the youngest age groups (1st graders don’t want to play with 2nd graders, and vice versa), and  a big problem each year for the trapped 8th graders and trapped Seniors whose former club teammates have now moved on to high school or college.
The BEST cutoff would match the school cutoff (i.e., Sept. 30, but not sure if that’s consistent across the US).
US Soccer matching the culture of America (grouping by school year) is a better way to increase soccer participation than grouping like FIFA. The compelling reason to “switch back” is that participation has decreased.
To those who are quite reasonably upset about this pending change, here are a few more thoughts:

Change is hard (but it’s easier for the kids than it is for the parents & coaches).
Having 2 systems as some have proposed (i.e., grandfathering older groups into keeping the birth year cutoff) is unrealistic and short-sighted (sorry); players can play up to solve that though.
Letting the frustration over the last change (to birth year in 2016) affect today’s thinking would be throwing good money after bad.
It will be easier this time, because now we’re pros at changing and because players will see some positives in it.
US Soccer’s leaders better have thick skin – they’re gonna need it.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

Not happening, school year varies and is not consistent with age eitherway.   No don't think calendar year was a mistake and you have to align with international standard if you want to move forward.

80/20 rule for calendar year, the 20% mostly born last couple months year want to revert, don't see much support from the other 80% to go back.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 10, 2019)

Ha!   This would be awesome.  Imagine all of the clubs that had tryouts over the past few weeks having to do a “do-over”.


----------



## justneededaname (Dec 10, 2019)

Their servers are now down due to capacity problems. Either a lot of soccer people want to read what that article has to say or US Soccer doesn't want word to get out so they hit them with a ddos attack. I'm going with the second because it is more like spies and international intrigue and stuff. And way more fun to speculate about.


----------



## Emma (Dec 10, 2019)

Instead of going back to the school age change, they should do two things:

1.  Be more flexible with high school soccer because it inspires a local and cultural pride in the sport (like football and basketball).
2.  Allow kids that are born at the end of the year (Sept-Dec.) a _*choice*_ to play down a year *ONLY IF* it aligns with their high school graduation year because the purpose of this change is social.

There has been too many changes in the last few years and these kids have already had to adapt many times.  Don't force them to do it again.  We are  all too familiar with what most Clubs will do, they will force most of the Sept-Dec. kids to change teams in order to benefit their rankings on youth soccer or DA standings.   They'll sell it to the parents with more play time and better development for these kids - when in reality, it's just to make their club look better, and not for the individual benefit of the player/person.  I


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Dec 10, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Not happening, school year varies and is not consistent with age eitherway.   No don't think calendar year was a mistake and you have to align with international standard if you want to move forward.
> 
> 80/20 rule for calendar year, the 20% mostly born last couple months year want to revert, don't see much support from the other 80% to go back.


If I remember correctly, the old cutoff was August 1.  So that's more like 58/42 instead of 80/20.  Also why do you think they care about what we (the parents) think?


----------



## dad4 (Dec 10, 2019)

Emma said:


> 1.  Be more flexible with high school soccer because it inspires a local and cultural pride in the sport (like football and basketball).
> 2.  Allow kids that are born at the end of the year (Sept-Dec.) a _*choice*_ to play down a year *ONLY IF* it aligns with their high school graduation year because the purpose of this change is social.


If you allow playing down for ”social” reasons, it will get used for strategic reasons.

And, the more you allow older, heavier kids to play down, the more injuries you’re going to have among younger, lighter kids.  You could easily have a 3-4 year age gap on the AYSO side, with a small fast 8 or 9 year old kid playing up into U11/U12 and a large but clumsy September birthday 12 year old playing down into the same group. That‘s just asking for broken bones.

The age limits are there for safety, and need to be enforced.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 10, 2019)

I personally hope they change it back.  Our team decided to stick together when the birth year change happened.  About half the team has been playing "up" for a few years now.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

justneededaname said:


> Their servers are now down due to capacity problems. Either a lot of soccer people want to read what that article has to say or US Soccer doesn't want word to get out so they hit them with a ddos attack. I'm going with the second because it is more like spies and international intrigue and stuff. And way more fun to speculate about.


Nothing burger...

Some small town local league don't like the change so they asked someone people what they thought about going back to the old system.

Small cincy club ran with it and posted a  hopefully rumor fictional piece that amounts to nothing but that.

YMCA, school leagues, futsal or other leagues could still do school year groups if they want but us soccer is not going back.


----------



## outside! (Dec 10, 2019)

jpeter said:


> you have to align with international standard if you want to move forward.


Sorry, but I entirely disagree with this. I believe the international standard for age brackets has almost zero effect. The single most important thing the US needs to do to become competitive in soccer is to help soccer become more popular in the US. Every 1st or 2nd grader that doesn't play or quits soccer because they cannot play with their school friends has an exponential effect on the popularity of soccer. Discourage enough little kids and the sport will not grow at all.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

Messi>CR7 said:


> If I remember correctly, the old cutoff was August 1.  So that's more like 58/42 instead of 80/20.  Also why do you think they care about what we (the parents) think?


Wasn't referring to the August 1st cutoff,  School year varies for different ages but 80% of a certain calendar year are on the same school year ( 2002 seniors for example) in California but that's changing now according to Grace  since Cali changed the kindergarten start  cutoff dates in the last few years.


----------



## Emma (Dec 10, 2019)

dad4 said:


> If you allow playing down for ”social” reasons, it will get used for strategic reasons.
> 
> And, the more you allow older, heavier kids to play down, the more injuries you’re going to have among younger, lighter kids.  You could easily have a 3-4 year age gap on the AYSO side, with a small fast 8 or 9 year old kid playing up into U11/U12 and a large but clumsy September birthday 12 year old playing down into the same group. That‘s just asking for broken bones.
> 
> The age limits are there for safety, and need to be enforced.


I agree with you that age group should be enforced for the safety of players.  I'm not looking to allow kids to play down more than 4 months.  The only kids that would be allowed to play down would be the ones that are born in between Sept - December and the child *MUST *be in the same grade level as most of the team. For example, an 05 born between September - December AND is currently in Eigth grade would be allowed to play with the 06 age bracket because most of the eighth graders are 2006s. This way, the child will be able to play with their grade level if they choose to. It's been a while but I believe we used to allow July and August babies to choose bt two age groups. No harm was done and kids were able to play with their classmates.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

outside! said:


> Sorry, but I entirely disagree with this. I believe the international standard for age brackets has almost zero effect. The single most important thing the US needs to do to become competitive in soccer is to help soccer become more popular in the US. Every 1st or 2nd grader that doesn't play or quits soccer because they cannot play with their school friends has an exponential effect on the popularity of soccer. Discourage enough little kids and the sport will not grow at all.


What's that have to do with international standards and what are you disagreeing with? 

1st and 2nd graders are 6 & 7 and Ayso,  school, local leagues are what they are.  Why does calendar year discourage anybody when 80% of a school class is in the same calendar year?


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 10, 2019)

timmyh said:


> Rumors of US Soccer going back to "school year" instead of "calendar year" in 2020...
> 
> https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulling-age-group-changes/?fbclid=IwAR23TsE_M0h8UBsU7xW_5fGrJKH0dT7FL5Fk_7j5k5OEunFtq32K7UlMWW8
> 
> ...


If this happens, I will be happy for others but this is complete BS for what my kid and others went through the last 3 years.


jpeter said:


> Nothing burger...
> 
> Some small town local league don't like the change so they asked someone people what they thought about going back to the old system.
> 
> ...


For boys, sure.  Girls, 100% wrong.  I got on here ranting about it and I called a club hopper.  Girls are SOCIAL!!!!!!


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2019)

There's no consistency in the US around what the kindergarten cutoff is.  5 or 6 states use August 1, which is why the old line.  A handful more states use mid-August dates.  Some go as late as October.

I personally couldn't see them doing a straight revert.  The uproar would be deafining and the entire point was international competitions.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> If this happens, I will be happy for others but this is complete BS for what my kid and others went through the last 3 years.
> 
> For boys, sure.  Girls, 100% wrong.  I got on here ranting about it and I called a club hopper.  Girls are SOCIAL!!!!!!


Why does gender matter? 

Ok our daughter played 10+ years, ECNL, HS, etc and she always played with her friends before/after the change and she was the 20% on the younger side but it didn't matter and she was better as a results.   would have just played up if she wanted to move to another team/ club.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 10, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Why does gender matter?
> 
> Ok our daughter played 10+ years, ECNL, HS, etc and she always played with her friends before/after the change and she was the 20% on the younger side but it didn't matter and she was better as a results.   would have just played up if she wanted to move to another team/ club.


To each his own.  Birth year benefited who on the girls side?  99% of these girls will NEVER play international rules after DA is over.  99% will play the college rules.  This was done in the middle of night.  Many wise people said don't do it, but they did it anyways.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Dec 10, 2019)

Emma said:


> I agree with you that age group should be enforced for the safety of players.  I'm not looking to allow kids to play down more than 4 months.  The only kids that would be allowed to play down would be the ones that are born in between Sept - December and the child *MUST *be in the same grade level as most of the team. For example, an 05 born between September - December AND is currently in Eigth grade would be allowed to play with the 06 age bracket because most of the eighth graders are 2006s. This way, the child will be able to play with their grade level if they choose to. It's been a while but I believe we used to allow July and August babies to choose bt two age groups. No harm was done and kids were able to play with their classmates.


Isn’t that exactly what the “school year” banding does?


----------



## outside! (Dec 10, 2019)

jpeter said:


> What's that have to do with international standards and what are you disagreeing with?
> 
> 1st and 2nd graders are 6 & 7 and Ayso,  school, local leagues are what they are.  Why does calendar year discourage anybody when 80% of a school class is in the same calendar year?


I am disagreeing with your assertion that conforming with the FIFA age brackets (I heard the UK does not, but may be wrong) has a large positive effect on US competitiveness in soccer. Youth soccer participation is no longer growing in the US. We should be doing everything we can to increase the popularity of youth soccer. In California, the current cutoff date for school is September 1. Age year soccer brackets force 1/3 of California children to play with children different grade. The time to make new soccer players is in elementary school. and the US could use more soccer players.


----------



## Kante (Dec 10, 2019)

(steps onto soapbox)

an idea.

Any comments on these kind of threads should be prefaced w/ your kid's(s') dob.

And any comments that don't start w/ kid's(s') should be dq'ed.

(where you stand depends on where you sit...)
________

oldest is eom nov; youngest is early july.

older is the much better athlete and also benefitted from RAE advantage before the switch to CY. however, he is also a relative late bloomer, so has the double whammy, late dob and late developer (my wife's brother  - an average height guy - was still growing in college). he's struggled at times but has learned to cope and likely is athletic enough/good enough at soccer that ultimately he will benefit from being forced to play with kids who are essentially a year older. As opposed to being driven out of the sport.

on the other hand, younger benefitted enormously from switch to CY. also late developer, and was on receiving end of RAE _disadvantage_, based on school year dob cut-off. likely would not still be playing soccer at competitive level w/o CY switch. however, will be bigger than his older brother and seems to be starting to come around athletically and as a soccer player, so will see.

thus, am ambivalent about a switch back to school year.

but do know that for which ever set of players that get the smelly end of the stick for dob cut-off, whether it's Oct thru Dec or July thru Aug, there needs to be something in place to make sure these kids have an opportunity to develop.

seems obvious and not sure why this isn't a much much bigger topic w/ much more support.

USSDA used to have at least some programs for younger dob/late developers - i.e. a ynt futures camp, used to call up younger dobs to specific segment of the training centers, used to specifically scout for high potential younger dob/late developers - but all this went away in 2018-19 due to budget cuts (meanwhile, USSF is spending an unanticipated $9m defending themselves from lawsuits - awesome).

The only USSDA item remaining that benefits younger dob/late developers is the rule allowing up to two younger dob/late developer players to play down at u14 and u15.

But, from eyeballing game reports, only about 1/4 of the clubs do this, and USSDA probably should be doing a lot more to promote and normalize this, rather than having it be an exception w/ a stigma attached. (and btw, this rule doesn't cost USSF $, which is likely why it continues).

Here's a decent look at some of what Europe is doing in this area - http://uefa.to/2exNCr5; pages 17 - 23 (thanks Carlitos10!)

On the boys' side, simply put, it's a fact that significant dob developmental advantages exist up thru u17.

so, maybe, instead of folks lobbying for whatever dob cut-off date benefits their kid, just maybe focus all that energy on making sure that programs are in place to support *all* the kids.

(i.e. and maybe also consider that your kid isn't actually better, maybe he's just older... for now...)

(quickly ducks off soapbox to avoid incoming shrapnel...)


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 10, 2019)

outside! said:


> I am disagreeing with your assertion that conforming with the FIFA age brackets (I heard the UK does not, but may be wrong) has a large positive effect on US competitiveness in soccer. Youth soccer participation is no longer growing in the US. We should be doing everything we can to increase the popularity of youth soccer. In California, the current cutoff date for school is September 1. Age year soccer brackets force 1/3 of California children to play with children different grade. The time to make new soccer players is in elementary school. and the US could use more soccer players.


Awesome!!!!!!!!!  Winner!!!!!!!!!


----------



## younothat (Dec 10, 2019)

School year, calendar year is all noise IMO.  You can group them anyway you want don't think it will make a difference for youth soccer in the US.  One doesn't benefit the other expect when your playing  other teams in tournaments or competition.      

Playing with friends is nice but it can run's it course pretty quick initially but sometimes can regroup later. Our son & daughter always wanted to play with as many of his friends as they could when there where younger.

Son Played on his own neighborhood team at 6 indoor, daughter was older so played on mixed teams since there was not enough young girls around to make teams in the neighborhood.  

Both where asked to tryout for various clubs teams after playing indoor for a year,  son turned them down first year but daughter went for it although only one of her friends got offered a spot on the 1st ream with her.    She wasn't sure but I encouraged her to attend some training before she made the decision, she really liked the coach and was hooked after they won the 1st tournament, made lots of new friends, was happy as a lark.   She continued to play with friends on the weekends, futsal, or whenever she got the chance.  would be years before some of her old friends eventually played HS with her again but did have have some club player who where consistent with her even when they changed clubs.

Son continued  only playing with his neighborhood school based team until he was in 2nd grade or so when club coaches really started to recruit more. After they finished  finalist in U9 (playing up) in a  local club tournament playing with colored t shirts every player was recruited.   My Son thought no way, look we are just as good or better and we don't even have a coach, why should we change now.  Later on he was induced to some US mens soccer players at a tournament they where playing and eventually started to train with a coach they had recommend.    He was asked to play on his U9 team but none of his buddies made it when the tryouts game and he didn't understand why or really wanted to at first.   Guest playing on grass for the first time he was hooked and loved it even though he was the smallest player by far, missed his friends so they continued playing futsal for another couple years together and occasionally the odd tournament.  In the end just like his sister he made a bunch of new friends, stayed on touch, and out of his original team almost  of them are have been offered college scholarship so far,   crazy to think that some of same 6 yrs olds will be playing at the same Pac10 schools again after all these years, even if they only played a year or two together later when the club stars aligned.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 10, 2019)

Kante said:


> (steps onto soapbox)
> 
> an idea.
> 
> ...


DD 01/04/04.  I want the old age cutoff August 1st.  It's better socially for my kid and many others.  I want all girls to be able to play in any league they can regardless of HS Soccer.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 10, 2019)

It probably makes sense to split into different rules for rec and high level comp.

My comp kid (march) plays up anyway.  I dont really care what the comp age cutoff is, so long as there is one and it is sharp.  I don’t want injuries because some coach found an overweight over age kid with low skills to control the middle of the field.

For rec?  Go with the age limits for the local school district.  Who cares if an LA rec league has different age bands from a Vegas rec league?  They don’t play each other anyway.


----------



## younothat (Dec 10, 2019)

dad4 said:


> It probably makes sense to split into different rules for rec and high level comp.
> 
> My comp kid (march) plays up anyway.  I dont really care what the comp age cutoff is, so long as there is one and it is sharp.  I don’t want injuries because some coach found an overweight over age kid with low skills to control the middle of the field.
> 
> For rec?  Go with the age limits for the local school district.  Who cares if an LA rec league has different age bands from a Vegas rec league?  They don’t play each other anyway.


There you go, that fellow #jpeter was likely saying the same thing but you put it across better.

00,01,03 all three going to or committed to college.


----------



## Socal United (Dec 10, 2019)

We have plenty of kids playing, just make 6 month age groups instead of 12 month.   Done.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 10, 2019)

outside! said:


> I am disagreeing with your assertion that conforming with the FIFA age brackets (I heard the UK does not, but may be wrong) has a large positive effect on US competitiveness in soccer. Youth soccer participation is no longer growing in the US. We should be doing everything we can to increase the popularity of youth soccer. In California, the current cutoff date for school is September 1. Age year soccer brackets force 1/3 of California children to play with children different grade. The time to make new soccer players is in elementary school. and the US could use more soccer players.


Ok but that's not my assertion.

Making a special accommodation for a 1/3 of potential players that's in the future, not now since school year cutoff in California wasn't Sept 1st until recently is fine but then you will have players with up to 3 differnt calendar year on the same teams.   How does that help? My sons HS has 01, 02, 03 seniors for example but 80% are 02s.

US youth Soccer populality has nothing to do with age groups, haven't seen any study that indicates otherwise. 

If you want to encourage more elementary school participants, futsal courts, additional programming, coaching ed is going help a bunch more. 

Six month bands for younger rec player might be the way to go like socalunited mentioned


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2019)

dad4 said:


> It probably makes sense to split into different rules for rec and high level comp.
> 
> My comp kid (march) plays up anyway.  I dont really care what the comp age cutoff is, so long as there is one and it is sharp.  I don’t want injuries because some coach found an overweight over age kid with low skills to control the middle of the field.
> 
> For rec?  Go with the age limits for the local school district.  Who cares if an LA rec league has different age bands from a Vegas rec league?  They don’t play each other anyway.


Yeah but the problem is the intermediates.  What about all the bronze teams (the youngers all start at bronze anyways)...somewhere along you are either going to run into a transition problem (as kids move up) or a lock in problem (so suddenly everyone in the know will try to make the switch to club soccer at the earliest ages possible so they aren't caught in the different calendar)?  When a team gets promoted do they need to reshuffle?  What about when relegated?  

Also, the AYSO Core people might love this, but it will make it impossible for Extras, for example to transition as a team to club, to play tournaments, or to try out for United.  Since AYSO is looking to build a tiered system, from VIP to a DA equivalent, under one roof, it will make it really hard for them to manage that.

If they are going to fiddle with this, the best thing to do would be to allow limited exemptions.  For a more radical reform, band the birthyears by 6 months.


----------



## dk_b (Dec 10, 2019)

Emma said:


> 1.  Be more flexible with high school soccer because it inspires a local and cultural pride in the sport (like football and basketball).


Can you expand on that a bit more?  What flexibility do you mean?  Other than changing the prohibition on DA players playing HS, is there something else?  If that were to change, there would be a whole host of other necessary changes at the DA level, including a decentralization of scheduling, so maybe I'm not picking up on the other limitations that would be in US Soccer's control.

Should add: I have a daughter who is an 02 and daughters who are 06.


----------



## Dargle (Dec 10, 2019)

The facebook post quoted in the article (blog post?) said "US Youth"




> _app-facebook_
> 
> Buckeye Premier Youth Soccer League
> on Friday
> US Youth is wanting to understand your thoughts, the implications and/or your concerns on going BACK to the old method of age determination. What are your thoughts on this if this were to be considered in the future???




It may be that US Youth Soccer is polling leagues about the possibility of a pullback, but sounds much less definite than an actual rumor of a plan being put into existence next year


----------



## Husky13 (Dec 10, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Not happening, school year varies and is not consistent with age eitherway.   No don't think calendar year was a mistake and you have to align with international standard if you want to move forward.
> 
> 80/20 rule for calendar year, the 20% mostly born last couple months year want to revert, don't see much support from the other 80% to go back.


The Cincy article summarizes it nicely.  Kids in the younger half/third of the calendar year who are in 8th grade when 9th graders in their same calendar year are playing HS soccer are left with nothing for the entire spring season.  Similar situation when they reach 12th grade.  You can dismiss these issues if you want just because your kid is in the older half of the calendar year, but for many these are real problems and they are simply unnecessary.

The calendar year change was for what benefit?  To align with "international standards"?  How many of our youth teams are playing in international tournaments?  Percentage-wise, very few.  My kid has been to several.  Guess what?  Many of them were birth year, so we had to reshuffle our calendar year team to fit!

By the way, I am not coming at this from sour grapes.  The calendar year change was better for my kid, it challenged him.  It was like playing 1/2 year up, and he needed that.  Plus, it prepared him better for the DA/Academy age years, which are/always have been calendar year.  But, again, the calendar year structure hurts many more than it helps.  It is simply wrong to require 5th grades to have to play with 6th graders, etc.


----------



## Emma (Dec 10, 2019)

Kicker4Life said:


> Isn’t that exactly what the “school year” banding does?


If the school year banding doesn't include kids that have been held back a year, then yes.  My second concern is DOC and coaches pressuring kids to move teams *again *to make their teams stronger.  It would allow the kids to choose which age group (school band or age band) they want to play for rather than have the DOC/coaches choose for them.

I have a boy that is in high school - he doesn't care (about anything) and this doesn't affect him either way.  I have a late birthday middle school girl and she had a tough transition the first time but acclimated and most likely does not want to be forced (about anything) to move teams again.  I can see a few DOC/Coaches forcing her to switch teams to make their school band stronger.  If we want to retain girls in soccer programs, comp or rec,  through their tween years, friendships are important. 

I do not want to identify my children bc I would like to reserve the right to say randomly dumb things on this forum from time to time, as I've exercised multiple times already.  I'm not as  brave as Luis and EJ.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2019)

Husky13 said:


> The calendar year change was for what benefit?  To align with "international standards"?  How many of our youth teams are playing in international tournaments?  Percentage-wise, very few.  My kid has been to several.  Guess what?  Many of them were birth year, so we had to reshuffle our calendar year team to fit!


This goes to the heart of the question, though.  Is the goal of US soccer to prepare a USMNT and a USWNT in which case there is an overwhelming advantage to have the same players know each other and play with each other since the early teenage years.  Or is the goal of US soccer to achieve a broad based participation and love for the game?  Or is the goal of US soccer to create quality players reading to play in college?  The goals sometimes all conflict, but US Soccer has come out on the first repeatedly since the World Cup qualification fiasco.


----------



## watfly (Dec 10, 2019)

I have a Sep 26 kid on the slightly smaller and much lighter (weight, not color) side.  I couldn't care less  whether its calendar or Aug 1 cutoff, despite the perceived disadvantage of calendar year because my kid is on the younger side.   Although I'd prefer not to go through another change, the "chaos" caused by the calendar year change was vastly exaggerated.

US Soccer has a huge grassroots problem that won't be solved by changing the age bands.  If its truly being contemplated by US Soccer its just their way of claiming to address the grassroots problem without actually addressing the problem and with as little effort, or cost, on their part as possible.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 10, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Yeah but the problem is the intermediates.  What about all the bronze teams (the youngers all start at bronze anyways)...somewhere along you are either going to run into a transition problem (as kids move up) or a lock in problem (so suddenly everyone in the know will try to make the switch to club soccer at the earliest ages possible so they aren't caught in the different calendar)?  When a team gets promoted do they need to reshuffle?  What about when relegated?
> 
> Also, the AYSO Core people might love this, but it will make it impossible for Extras, for example to transition as a team to club, to play tournaments, or to try out for United.  Since AYSO is looking to build a tiered system, from VIP to a DA equivalent, under one roof, it will make it really hard for them to manage that.
> 
> If they are going to fiddle with this, the best thing to do would be to allow limited exemptions.  For a more radical reform, band the birthyears by 6 months.


Extra and United have already completely given up on school based teams.   Just treat them the same as the rest of comp.  It is only rec that needs to align with school years.  If you have tryouts, you’ve already given up on choosing a team to be school chums.

6 months bands is great for LA and SD.  It fractures the landscape pretty severely in the midwest and mountain states.  Even near me in norcal, our top teams have a hard time finding opponents on the girls side.

As for exceptions, NJB allows them for basketball, with a 24 month age band.  (grade 7 and 8 combined.)  The 6 foot 6 dads with redshirted kids love it.   But it also means a ton of kids quit in 7th grade because they don‘t like getting shoved around by a 9th grader.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 10, 2019)

dad4 said:


> Extra and United have already completely given up on school based teams.   Just treat them the same as the rest of comp.  It is only rec that needs to align with school years.  If you have tryouts, you’ve already given up on choosing a team to be school chums.


Not sure how it's run on other leagues, but AYSO Core the primary responsibility for sorting is to create a balanced team.  Every kid is assigned a number ranking (1-5) and sorted to create a balanced approach.  Only secondarily does AYSO consider school based.  Neither of my kids nor my youngers girlfriend ever played on a team with their classmates (though in fairness, it was a very small school).  

On the other hand, I've seen the school-based thing in the past be used as a way for certain AYSO coaches to fudge the ranking systems.  Some regions are more severe than others on the rules, but at least for AYSO if they care about balanced, school-based shouldn't be a paramount concern.


----------



## Emma (Dec 10, 2019)

dk_b said:


> .
> Can you expand on that a bit more?  What flexibility do you mean?  Other than changing the prohibition on DA players playing HS, is there something else?  If that were to change, there would be a whole host of other necessary changes at the DA level, including a decentralization of scheduling, so maybe I'm not picking up on the other limitations that would be in US Soccer's control.
> 
> Should add: I have a daughter who is an 02 and daughters who are 06.


I don't think we need to decentralize schedules.  I think we need to have DA and high school coaches/league governing bodies work together for the benefit of the kids.  Flexibility with training and game schedules during high school season.  Training schedule for dual high school and Club players - two days of practice with club and two days with high school.  If you have a high school game that day, you can miss practice but you have to do certain stretching/cooling down exercises to prevent injuries.  A lot of the training and game schedules are based on regional needs due to weather or field space already so including this won't hurt.  If there are DA Showcase/tournaments, high school coaches (league administrators) work together and not schedule games during those times.  Let a kid miss a few DA/high school games without being punished if their high school team makes it deep in the championship or club tournaments.

A little less ego by high school soccer and DA soccer, and a little more collaboration for the benefit of the kids and the future of soccer in America. 

Come cheer on your teammates at high school soccer games, come cheer on your high school teammates at Club games.  Turn both into a community/social competitive event rather than elitist.  Kids compete better and their drive to get better is stronger when they know the community and their friends are watching and cheering.


----------



## 66 GTO (Dec 10, 2019)

4 of my 5 sons play 
March 05
Late late June 06
 December Christmas 2011 
Early Feb 2013

And my youngest  will start kicking the ball next year 
  December 2015 

I’ve said it before  when it was changed to birth year that I agreed to the change
None of my sons have ever played with their classmates. 
, look for the level of play that you think is good for your player and develop from there 
Whether is flight 1-3 
My 2 oldest started flight 3 when they were 9 and 10 and are doing good now

My 2011 is a really good  player up to now
playing flight one and he came to this world 2 weeks early should have been a 2012
But it is what it is
Let’s not make excuses for our players 
It doesn’t help them 
Let’s prepare them. Instead.


----------



## dk_b (Dec 10, 2019)

Emma said:


> I don't think we need to decentralize schedules.  I think we need to have DA and high school coaches/league governing bodies work together for the benefit of the kids.  Flexibility with training and game schedules during high school season.  Training schedule for dual high school and Club players - two days of practice with club and two days with high school.  If you have a high school game that day, you can miss practice but you have to do certain stretching/cooling down exercises to prevent injuries.  A lot of the training and game schedules are based on regional needs due to weather or field space already so including this won't hurt.  If there are DA Showcase/tournaments, high school coaches (league administrators) work together and not schedule games during those times.  Let a kid miss a few DA/high school games without being punished if their high school team makes it deep in the championship or club tournaments.
> 
> A little less ego by high school soccer and DA soccer, and a little more collaboration for the benefit of the kids and the future of soccer in America.
> 
> Come cheer on your teammates at high school soccer games, come cheer on your high school teammates at Club games.  Turn both into a community/social competitive event rather than elitist.  Kids compete better and their drive to get better is stronger when they know the community and their friends are watching and cheering.


The reason why I mention decentralization is that the HS schedules are highly variable, depending on where you live.  CA is one of only 5 or 6 states with Winter HS (the remainder are nearly equally split between Fall and Spring). It works for ECNL because the clubs schedule for all but the national events (showcases, playoffs).  Then you have to factor, at least here in CA (not sure if other state federations have similar rules), CIF's rules on simultaneously playing HS and club.  Set aside whether that might be too much, CIF is very, very against this and when I have communicated with them in the past (because a national team camp was not posted on the "approved" list that CIF posts (that permits participants' participation w/o losing eligibility), CIF officials were none too sympathetic to the individual player involved - they essentially said, "make a choice.  And if your kid chooses camp over HS, it will give another player an opportunity on the HS squad).  Last, you'd need some real coordination among schools/conferences/sections to have a routinized division of practice/game days - not every school has ample fields to just practice whenever and play games whenever (my kid goes to an urban school in the Bay Area; they have access to one field, there are 6 soccer teams (3 boys, 3 girls) for practice and games and there are other sports that use that same field while the HS I attended is suburban with ample space and about 1/3 the number of students).

I think national-level scheduling (like US Soccer does for DA) would be next to impossible in dealing with multiple state HS federations, multiple playing seasons, field availability issues, etc. Don't get me wrong - I really like your points from a theoretical standpoint but I'm not sure they can work from a practical one.  I can't stand the prohibition on HS play b/c I think that the vast, vast majority of players (including those who play in college) won't sniff national team participation so is it really worth it to prohibit such a quintessential American experience as playing for your school? (I'm entire supportive of any player deciding she/he does not want to play HS but feel strongly it should be the player's decision, not the national governing body).


----------



## Chalklines (Dec 10, 2019)

PLEASE let this happen! Daughters Dec, Sons September


----------



## outside! (Dec 10, 2019)

So responding to multiple posts.

DD plays college, my son is a junior in HS. None of this matters to either of my players anymore and even when they were in the middle of it did not have a large effect on them. Having said that, I don't believe my daughter would have started playing soccer if she could not have played with her 2nd grade classmates, who where all a different birth year from her, but were all the same school year. So if birth year would have been the rules back when she started, there would be one less D1 female soccer player now.

I think Emma should run the soccer world.

I think it is stupid that DA does not allow HS play. That is flat out ignoring one of the sports infrastructure advantages that the US has over other countries.

Regarding national level play, I don't care. I think Southern California should withdraw completely from DA and ECNL and form our own soccer federation. Lower level teams would play as local as possible to minimize expenses and upper level teams would play in a revamped CSL type league. Invite out of state teams to come to our big tournaments. College coaches, pro scouts and out of state teams will come in droves since they would much rather come here than some hellhole like Dallas in July or North Carolina in December.


----------



## dk_b (Dec 10, 2019)

outside! said:


> I think it is stupid that DA does not allow HS play. That is flat out ignoring one of the sports infrastructure advantages that the US has over other countries.


I agree with you but as I posted upthread, I think its pretty complicated - DA would have to decentralize scheduling if HS was permitted and it seems to be that the DA ego won't allow that.  A centralized scheduling apparatus would drive itself crazy trying to balance HS with club and that is one way in which ECNL has it over GDA (it is not just that HS is permitted but that the infrastructure exists to allow that while still playing a regional format with national events.  If ECNL retained all local scheduling, I don't see how it could be pulled off w/o a disproportionate amount of resources dedicated to pulling that off)


----------



## mirage (Dec 10, 2019)

If social interactions are important, probably should do away with ages all together and gather them by grades (i.e., NJB).  

Our older kid, when he was U6 starting, most of his friends, classmates were U7 or U8 because he was young classmate. It was only after he played up a year or in DA where calendar year was used for many years prior to the rest of US youth soccer, did he get to play with his friends/classmates.

After a quick glance through the posts, what would satisfy most parents (notice I said parents and not kids) is if we let all Youngers (U13 and below) play using school year start as a guide (e.g., Aug 1-July 31) and transition to calendar year at Older ages U15+. Have U14 as the transition year where upper tier levels play calendar year and lower tier play school year.  This will address puberty issue as most are done or at least almost done by U15 (boys can be later but that's a small population - both of our boys were laters).

Objectively, we should be on the calendar year system for all sports, not just soccer.  And those who make a big deal about late year birth children, our college playing son is November 23rd who started college at 17 years old so we understand and know.  That said at some point, it doesn't matter and parents need to let that go and not use it as a reason for anything.

Last, DA used to have HS break like ECNL but the whole premise of having 10 months season was to "develop" players and HS basically undo and teach bad habits from what they want to teach players.  Our older kid did play DA and HS but in different years.  He wanted to play high school with his friends so he had to quit DA to do so.  Then when he was recruited, the college coach wanted him to play DA so he rejoined DA.


----------



## Hawkeye (Dec 10, 2019)

I have three kids of various ages, two May/June, one August. Two were advantaged by the change to calendar years, one was advantaged. The August kid (a girl) still plays at a fairly high level and would benefit from going back to August 1.  

I have no idea whether US Soccer is actually considering this move or if it’s just some rumor from a random youth league in Ohio, but I think it would be great to go back to August 1. Some states, school districts, and individual schools have August 1 cutoffs, so that date works best for generally keeping teams together by school year.

I don’t see “playing with friends” as the main advantage of August 1. The main advantages are in 8th/9th and 12th grades, as calendar years now lead to situations where (a) 8th graders are stranded for the portion of the season when their 9th grade teammates are playing hs; and (b) there is a lot of movement on 12th grade teams as kids from the older age group are combined with the younger age groups.

Keeping ODP calendar year, as it always has been, is fine and allows RAE advantages to be highlighted. DA could stay calendar year too so long as they ban hs (who knows how long the hs ban is sustainable on the girls side, but that’s a separate issue).


----------



## timbuck (Dec 10, 2019)

As much as I think it was the dumbest thing that US Soccer has done in the past 5 years (and there have been some pretty dumb things), I think changing it back would be even dumber.
Yes, high school seniors might get hosed because some of their club teammates are done a year before them.  But clubs seem to have found ways via "composite" teams to make it work for those that want to continue playing 1 more year of club soccer.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Dec 10, 2019)

Emma said:


> If the school year banding doesn't include kids that have been held back a year, then yes.  My second concern is DOC and coaches pressuring kids to move teams *again *to make their teams stronger.  It would allow the kids to choose which age group (school band or age band) they want to play for rather than have the DOC/coaches choose for them.
> 
> I have a boy that is in high school - he doesn't care (about anything) and this doesn't affect him either way.  I have a late birthday middle school girl and she had a tough transition the first time but acclimated and most likely does not want to be forced (about anything) to move teams again.  I can see a few DOC/Coaches forcing her to switch teams to make their school band stronger.  If we want to retain girls in soccer programs, comp or rec,  through their tween years, friendships are important.
> 
> I do not want to identify my children bc I would like to reserve the right to say randomly dumb things on this forum from time to time, as I've exercised multiple times already.  I'm not as  brave as Luis and EJ.


Yah, Birth Years still comes into play for that reason (students held back)  but it groups kids from Aug ‘04 thru end of July ‘05 for example as u15.

LOL.....you do you!!!


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 10, 2019)

Keep it simple and keep the calendar year.  No need to go back to the old ways.


----------



## galaxydad (Dec 11, 2019)

I'm sure some will be in favor and others will not as it will affect kids yet again in both directions. If this does occur as fast as indicated my child will be one of those that will have gone through 2 band changes in his club lifetime. The 1st change hurt him as he went to the young side of the age band but was one of the few to survive the change and stay on a top team. Most of the other kids from the squads he played that went from the older side to the younger are not playing or playing on non-recruitable teams (zero judgements on this, just an observation as they were top difference-makers prior to the switch). Now the new switch could aid my son as he enters a key recruiting year. Some will argue that at this age it shouldn't matter, but I can tell you it does. It is much less of a difference size-wise but maturity, body control, muscle mass etc there is still a noticeable difference.  I for one wish they would just keep it as it is. Wait for this group to age out then implement the change. Being stuck in the middle of a science experiment gone bad sucks as the main reason most play is the relationships they foster on the pitch. My son struggled to fit in for a while with the older kids that got to stay with their teams due to a birthdate and now has developed some great relationships with those in his current age band. To be set to have to do so again just prior to him ageing out would be unfortunate. He will survive and do fine but we again see the unintended consequences of rules designed for the few at the expense of the main reason most play the game.


----------



## futboldad1 (Dec 11, 2019)

No way this change happens. Birth year is here to stay.


----------



## outside! (Dec 11, 2019)

futboldad1 said:


> No way this change happens. Birth year is here to stay.


I agree, but it will continue to discourage a non-insignificant portion of 1st and 2nd graders from playing. Can US soccer afford that? Only time will tell. With youth soccer numbers decreasing, I think we should do everything we can to reverse that trend. This effect may be more prevalent for female players. I believe female players are more important to the growth of the sport in the US when compared to other sports. Females don't play football and football is the sport soccer is competing with for eyeballs. When female soccer players grow up  and have children, they will be more likely to enroll their children in soccer and be soccer fans themselves. US soccer should be playing the long game.


----------



## Emma (Dec 11, 2019)

dk_b said:


> The reason why I mention decentralization is that the HS schedules are highly variable, depending on where you live.  CA is one of only 5 or 6 states with Winter HS (the remainder are nearly equally split between Fall and Spring). It works for ECNL because the clubs schedule for all but the national events (showcases, playoffs).  Then you have to factor, at least here in CA (not sure if other state federations have similar rules), CIF's rules on simultaneously playing HS and club.  Set aside whether that might be too much, CIF is very, very against this and when I have communicated with them in the past (because a national team camp was not posted on the "approved" list that CIF posts (that permits participants' participation w/o losing eligibility), CIF officials were none too sympathetic to the individual player involved - they essentially said, "make a choice.  And if your kid chooses camp over HS, it will give another player an opportunity on the HS squad).  Last, you'd need some real coordination among schools/conferences/sections to have a routinized division of practice/game days - not every school has ample fields to just practice whenever and play games whenever (my kid goes to an urban school in the Bay Area; they have access to one field, there are 6 soccer teams (3 boys, 3 girls) for practice and games and there are other sports that use that same field while the HS I attended is suburban with ample space and about 1/3 the number of students).
> 
> I think national-level scheduling (like US Soccer does for DA) would be next to impossible in dealing with multiple state HS federations, multiple playing seasons, field availability issues, etc. Don't get me wrong - I really like your points from a theoretical standpoint but I'm not sure they can work from a practical one.  I can't stand the prohibition on HS play b/c I think that the vast, vast majority of players (including those who play in college) won't sniff national team participation so is it really worth it to prohibit such a quintessential American experience as playing for your school? (I'm entire supportive of any player deciding she/he does not want to play HS but feel strongly it should be the player's decision, not the national governing body).


The showcases - one in fall, one in winter, one in spring and championships in summer. Let's not worry about summer bc it doesn't affect any high school soccer unless you have a crazy high school soccer coach that wants to run camps over the summer. 

Winter - only a few warm climates are affected - So DA should focus on this one.  The affected high school sections should work around that 1 week.   The problem is - high school sports also has an EGO problem and doesn't allow club players to play both high school & club soccer during the high school season either.   They should mandate the amount of days kids can train with both high school and club per week if they are concerned about injury, rather than mandate which group they can play with. High school sports will eventually become obsolete if they continue to fight with club sports rather than work with them.  

Fall and Spring showcases - clubs should only join one, based on when their high school is not playing.  

As for weekly games, those can be scheduled based on days, and they're currently scheduled locally based on field availability and weather.  DA clubs Working with local high school sections to avoid conflicts shouldn't be a problem.  They will not be fighting for field space any more than they currently are.  

I don't think scheduling is the tough part - Michelle Romero might be able to assist or not.  The problem is the egos from high school sports and DA.  Both groups do not understand that working together will make both stronger and better.


----------



## whatithink (Dec 12, 2019)

I don't see this change happening, it'll stay as is.

Someone noted that in the UK they don't do this, but that's incorrect. England made the change to year groups for FA groupings around the same time or just before the US. That said, there is a huge schools based soccer system in the UK and that remains grade based.

From my perspective my kids are Sep & Nov, so both were impacted by this.

On my son's team (Nov) they were about 50-50, older (Aug-Dec) vs younger (Jan-Jun) and the backbone of the team were the olders. They were also a top team in the state. Roll on from the change and all bar 2 of the "olders" have left soccer and all the "youngers" play DA or ECNL. They were not better players than their old teams mates, but they were dominant vs the "olders" on the year below.

On my daughter's team (Sep), they were about 20-80, older (Aug-Dec) vs younger (Jan-Jun) which was a strange mix. They were an avg team in the state. The "youngers" are now probably the top team in the state and only my kid is left on the "olders" team. That "older" team is made up of 90-10 with 90% of the players being Jan-Jul.

One thing I notice (I look as my kids are on the younger side now) when looking at elite rosters (DA) - on the girls side in particular, the older kids dominate. Its a biological and maturity (a grade ahead) advantage. On the bright side, if my daughter can continue to hang, she will have a huge advantage over her peer group if she wants to play college, as the number of kids from her grade year playing elite soccer in the Aug-Dec months will be far fewer than the number in the Jan-Jul months - and she will be playing a year "up" relative to her graduating year.

That said, I've never agreed with the change given it's not designed to service or support the kids in soccer. It doesn't surprise me that numbers have dropped.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 12, 2019)

I’d love to see US Soccer and/or some independent auditor do a review of what has changed since the age group change.  And the “total economic impact” across the country. 
I bet if you add up what it cost state associations, clubs, parents, field admins, etc, it would be a disgusting dollar amount. 
 I am lumping in the age group change with the other player development initiatives. (Small side games for younger players, new coach license curriculum)


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 12, 2019)




----------



## espola (Dec 12, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> View attachment 5985


What does this discussion have to do with Surf Cup?


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 12, 2019)

espola said:


> What does this discussion have to do with Surf Cup?


Money being spent at one tournament.  $$$$$$$$$$ and age change helped some and hurt others


----------



## dad4 (Dec 12, 2019)

espola said:


> What does this discussion have to do with Surf Cup?


He's claiming that Surf Cup still makes lots of money, so soccer overall is ok.

Of course, Surf cup serves a tiny fraction of overall youth soccer.  Ignores all of rec and most of copper/bronze/silver.

To get a real idea, you need to count the total number of kids in the various leagues:   AYSO + US Club + USYS + ...


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 12, 2019)

whatithink said:


> I
> 
> One thing I notice (I look as my kids are on the younger side now) when looking at elite rosters (DA) - on the girls side in particular, the older kids dominate. Its a biological and maturity (a grade ahead) advantage. On the bright side, if my daughter can continue to hang, she will have a huge advantage over her peer group if she wants to play college, as the number of kids from her grade year playing elite soccer in the Aug-Dec months will be far fewer than the number in the Jan-Jul months - and she will be playing a year "up" relative to her graduating year.


My son and I have been watching a series of U12 boys games from Utah premier and gold for kicks.  There's one team that he really loves called Wasatch.  The one thing you see time and time again on the dominant teams is that they are taller.  Taller= bigger physical presence and greater leg span.  It's not just maturity....the difference in growth over just 1 year at that age can amount to quite a few inches.


----------



## J496 (Dec 12, 2019)

Pray to God this happens!


----------



## whatithink (Dec 12, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> My son and I have been watching a series of U12 boys games from Utah premier and gold for kicks.  There's one team that he really loves called Wasatch.  The one thing you see time and time again on the dominant teams is that they are taller.  Taller= bigger physical presence and greater leg span.  It's not just maturity....the difference in growth over just 1 year at that age can amount to quite a few inches.


That's what I meant by my biological reference, i.e. they hit puberty sooner and get bigger, faster & stronger. Both my kids are late bloomers, so she's the smallest on her roster of 18 bar one kid - she's prob 9 inches shorter & 30+ pounds lighter than the biggest player. My son has been giving up, at the extremes 10+ inches and 50+ pounds in his head to heads. They will both catch up and it will level out. 

Bigger, faster & stronger doesn't mean better obv. but it does give an advantage and way too many coaches will go for it first every time.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 12, 2019)

whatithink said:


> Bigger, faster & stronger doesn't mean better obv. but it does give an advantage and way too many coaches will go for it first every time.


Particularly when they are younger since (and quite obvious even at the supposedly "high level" of these Utah games) at the younger ages it's less about soccer=chess, and more about whose going to sneak one past the defensive line and then win the footrace and/or bang one in from far on a DFK and/or top of the 18.  For coaches who are concerned largely with the short term results, it makes rationale sense.


----------



## Woobie06 (Dec 12, 2019)

Is moving it back a big deal?  It was probably a mistake in the first place...kids can play with their school friends if they fall in that late birthday range or play with their age year.  Whatever works for the kid and their journey.  I could care less about clubs scheming to pull players “down”...that stuff is usually obvious and would make me question if that was the right place for the kid.

Our DD is a Nov Bday (‘06) and when she started playing she went out for the local club team.  We did not know she was playing “up”...she was just playing on the youngest  available team and played on the same team through the age change...zero effect for her as it was all she knew, but we know a ton of kids who were and it was not fun for them.  Now as she is getting older there are kids in her class who are ‘07’s and she has said it would be fun to play with classmates.  I agree with one of the posters who mentioned the social side of things.  It matters.  Next year she will be in 8th, and the rest of her old team in 9th all breaking for HS for ECNL and she would have been “stranded”.  She changed teams recently due to this.  Having the option to move down for those kids is not a bad thing.  Just gives a subset of kids an option if they want or need it.  Nothing wrong with that in IMHO.

Our other DD plays club Volleyball and they have the Sept 1 cut-off...works great.  Kids that play-up based on ability do, those that fit better with their school year do that.  You don’t hear a peep about it.

Never going to make everyone happy, but providing more choices and options are not a bad thing.  The resistance is the fear that some people’s kid may be pushed out, which is the same thing some of the late BDay kids deal with as well playing against some kids who are 9 and 10 months older.  In some cases with the ulittles and youngers that makes a difference.  Now you have pilots with bio-banding and things like that to try and match maturity, ability, size, etc. to even things out.  More options never hurt anyone.


----------



## Dirtnap (Dec 13, 2019)

timbuck said:


> I personally hope they change it back.  Our team decided to stick together when the birth year change happened.  About half the team has been playing "up" for a few years now.


I know my daughter would, she missed being a 07 by a month and most of her friends are 07's


----------



## timbuck (Dec 13, 2019)

When I first saw this posted here, I thought “no flipping way they would even consider moving it back”.  
But now I’m seeing this “rumor” all over Twitter and other forums.
If they do roll it back, do they do some sort of “grandfather” clause to allow existing teams some time to transition (or age out).  That was one of the biggest complaints when they rolled out “birth year”.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 13, 2019)

timbuck said:


> When I first saw this posted here, I thought “no flipping way they would even consider moving it back”.
> But now I’m seeing this “rumor” all over Twitter and other forums.
> If they do roll it back, do they do some sort of “grandfather” clause to allow existing teams some time to transition (or age out).  That was one of the biggest complaints when they rolled out “birth year”.


Start at u12 and go back to school age.  My poor dd has been through enough already and so have I.  Age change 2016, DA 2017 started the pay per play league, no HS Soccer allowed for poor kids in public school but if you're dad is rich and sits on the board you get waiver. Why do these asshole docs (not all) tell you in order to be "elite" you need to "pay so you can play" and pay for 10 months out of year, 4 days a week and travel all across the country spending hard earn money in showcases?  They tell you, you have to devote all your life at 12 years old in one sport?  Come on folks, seriously.  This is the biggest money scam ever.  Hogwash!!!!!!


----------



## espola (Dec 13, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> Start at u12 and go back to school age.  My poor dd has been through enough already and so have I.  Age change 2016, DA 2017 started the pay per play league, no HS Soccer allowed for poor kids in public school but if you're dad is rich and sits on the board you get waiver. Why do these asshole docs (not all) tell you in order to be "elite" you need to "pay so you can play" and pay for 10 months out of year, 4 days a week and travel all across the country spending hard earn money in showcases?  They tell you, you have to devote all your life at 12 years old in one sport?  Come on folks, seriously.  This is the biggest money scam ever.  Hogwash!!!!!!


I was trying to figure out how to reply to this coherently, and then I saw it is from nwd.  Reader beware.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 13, 2019)

Here's an example of what I was saying.  My son and I were watching this premier level game yesterday from Utah for U12.  You'll see the boys are mostly all very tall and big for 11/12 year olds.  I'll leave it to you guys to judge the quality of the soccer from the video.


----------



## watfly (Dec 13, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Here's an example of what I was saying.  My son and I were watching this premier level game yesterday from Utah for U12.  You'll see the boys are mostly all very tall and big for 11/12 year olds.  I'll leave it to you guys to judge the quality of the soccer from the video.


On average those kids are fairly big.  If you want to see some really big 11-12 year olds come to a DA showcase.  Some are just big kids, but some have the body tone and definition of an adult.  It can literally look like men against boys.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 13, 2019)

Do we need to do what they did for tackle football when I was growing up?
From 5th through 8th grade, they had weight divisions.
Lightweight
Middleweight
Heavyweight

It was ideal because everyone in a group was about the same size. So you didn't have the big kid always playing offensive line or the skinny kid playing receiver.  Gave kids a chance to play a few positions before getting pigeonholed based on their body type.


----------



## jpeter (Dec 13, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Do we need to do what they did for tackle football when I was growing up?
> From 5th through 8th grade, they had weight divisions.
> Lightweight
> Middleweight
> ...


Weight classes in wrestling & boxing but that's the first I heard about them for middle school football.  Age or grade grouped around here but multiples normally.

Soccer is sometime a bit of wrestling but that would be funny to have a lightweight team, mid weights, and our feature today the heavys.  Let's get ready to rumble...


----------



## espola (Dec 13, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Weight classes in wrestling & boxing but that's the first I heard about them for middle school football.  Age or grade grouped around here but multiples normally.
> 
> Soccer is sometime a bit of wrestling but that would be funny to have a lightweight team, mid weights, and our feature today the heavys.  Let's get ready to rumble...


When they were younger, my kids participated in tennis tournaments where age groups were set effective the day the tournament started.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 13, 2019)

espola said:


> When they were younger, my kids participated in tennis tournaments where age groups were set effective the day the tournament started.


Works fine for individual sports.  Tougher for a team passing sport like soccer.

Creating a new mix of kids 3 times per year seems like it would be awful for building friendships.  

Might be able to declare a max age, and max average age.   Kids playing up would have to be excluded from the average, or some idiot coach would have kids play up just to offset all his olders.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Dec 13, 2019)

This would be a good thing imo


----------



## Lambchop (Dec 14, 2019)

whatithink said:


> I don't see this change happening, it'll stay as is.
> 
> Someone noted that in the UK they don't do this, but that's incorrect. England made the change to year groups for FA groupings around the same time or just before the US. That said, there is a huge schools based soccer system in the UK and that remains grade based.
> 
> ...


So many other reasons why the number of players has dropped and it has nothing to do with the age change or pay to play.  Think about it, you have little children coming into soccer eager and willing to learn and play.  What is it that destroys their love of the game?  Spend some time seriously thinking about it.  The answer is too controversial for the forum.  Maybe some day a book will be written.


----------



## seuss (Dec 14, 2019)

Why would new soccer participation not go down when our men’s national team failed to make it into the World Cup last time?
We literally have ZERO men’s national team players with mainstream recognition. 
I might ask why any boy born in this culture would even think of the sport going forward?

Just about 20 years ago I was debating with a British guy about how close we were to taking over in soccer. I must have came across as the biggest dunce in the company with that.


----------



## Lambchop (Dec 14, 2019)

dad4 said:


> Works fine for individual sports.  Tougher for a team passing sport like soccer.
> 
> Creating a new mix of kids 3 times per year seems like it would be awful for building friendships.
> 
> Might be able to declare a max age, and max average age.   Kids playing up would have to be excluded from the average, or some idiot coach would have kids play up just to offset all his olders.


Don't worry about "playing with school friends".  The friends will be friends at their home school in spite of what sport they play.  DD DA team has 17 players from "15" different high schools!  They are all friends in spite of the different schools and distance between them.  Only two players attend the same high school. (five private schools in the mix)


----------



## dad4 (Dec 14, 2019)

Lambchop said:


> Don't worry about "playing with school friends".  The friends will be friends at their home school in spite of what sport they play.  DD DA team has 17 players from "15" different high schools!  They are all friends in spite of the different schools and distance between them.  Only two players attend the same high school. (five private schools in the mix)


I was talking about team friends.  Even in Ulittle, we have almost no one from the same school.  But none of them want the team to get scrambled every time birthdays roll around.


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 14, 2019)

Lambchop said:


> So many other reasons why the number of players has dropped and it has nothing to do with the age change or pay to play.  Think about it, you have little children coming into soccer eager and willing to learn and play.  What is it that destroys their love of the game?  Spend some time seriously thinking about it.  The answer is too controversial for the forum.  Maybe some day a book will be written.


I really interested in the answer.  Give it up, please.....  I will give you my thoughts after you give us your answer. 
P.S. I also have some stories to add to the book if you ever want to write one   A reality show is more like it.  TB said 100% I could roll the cameras.  He knows, as do other coaches, how lame and stupid all this is.  He also knows why and how all this has happened.  Dance moms, please...….. How about "Soccer Dads."  You need honest people like Luis and EJ to let their mouths fly.  Lawyer type rich dads will either recruit us or try and shut us up.  Luis's kid is way ahead of the curve at this age. My dd at U10 had mental toughness, blazing speed, goal scoring abilities (back then) and competitive drive that also took her above other players and everyone was pissed that we left Legends.  I told Luis it will all even out around U15.  The hope and prayer is your dd still loves the game even though some adults tried to ruin it for her.


----------



## Canyon90 (Dec 17, 2019)

newwavedave said:


> I really interested in the answer.  Give it up, please.....  I will give you my thoughts after you give us your answer.
> P.S. I also have some stories to add to the book if you ever want to write one   A reality show is more like it.  TB said 100% I could roll the cameras.  He knows, as do other coaches, how lame and stupid all this is.  He also knows why and how all this has happened.  Dance moms, please...….. How about "Soccer Dads."  You need honest people like Luis and EJ to let their mouths fly.  Lawyer type rich dads will either recruit us or try and shut us up.  Luis's kid is way ahead of the curve at this age. My dd at U10 had mental toughness, blazing speed, goal scoring abilities (back then) and competitive drive that also took her above other players and everyone was pissed that we left Legends.  I told Luis it will all even out around U15.  The hope and prayer is your dd still loves the game even though some adults tried to ruin it for her.


LMAO @ "everyone was pissed that we left Legends"

Don't you mean Blues, I mean Surf, wait no it was Blues, or maybe you're talking about next season when you leave Strikers!?

PS... I thought you "changed your ways & learned your lesson" yet you keep posting about how amazing of a soccer dad you were at U10.

Too funny brah - keep it up EJ, I mean Justus, wait it's NewWaveDave, wow - not only a club-hopper but a forum name-hopper too!


----------



## newwavedave (Dec 18, 2019)

Canyon90 said:


> LMAO @ "everyone was pissed that we left Legends"
> 
> Don't you mean Blues, I mean Surf, wait no it was Blues, or maybe you're talking about next season when you leave Strikers!?
> 
> ...


The plan before the birth year change was to play for Tad Bobak and the Blues until 18 years old if she never got cut along the way.  So, yes we pissed off some Blues parents as well and some coaches for being the first to take the Free Surf Deal.  Then we pissed off some more parents at Surf to go back to Legends so she could play up with the first DA 03/04 combo and then at the last second DA decided to switch to single band....oh my, I see your point.  This looks really bad, I will admit that. I hope the college coaches don't find out how much hopping we have done.  The only hopping I was ever accused of before club soccer was when I was surfing.  I am a forum hopper but at least I'm honest about it.  I know some folks who have three or four accounts and don't tell any of us.  My buddy has been with the Coach Woodcock Soccer Family for a few years, 2500+ following.  They went from: Blades, Slammers, LA Galaxy of OC and now Liverpool.  $1,000 price increase this year Canyon Guy. If some smart dad finally gets it and leaves, this would be his 5th new jersey with a different name.  That sucks and is really sad!!!!


----------



## Kante (Dec 18, 2019)

whatithink said:


> That's what I meant by my biological reference, i.e. they hit puberty sooner and get bigger, faster & stronger. Both my kids are late bloomers, so she's the smallest on her roster of 18 bar one kid - she's prob 9 inches shorter & 30+ pounds lighter than the biggest player. My son has been giving up, at the extremes 10+ inches and 50+ pounds in his head to heads. They will both catch up and it will level out.
> 
> Bigger, faster & stronger doesn't mean better obv. but it does give an advantage and way too many coaches will go for it first every time.


too often, coaches will equate older/early developer (which is what often but not always leads to b/f/s) with more talented, and therein is the problem.


----------



## whatithink (Dec 18, 2019)

Kante said:


> too often, coaches will equate older/early developer (which is what often but not always leads to b/f/s) with more talented, and therein is the problem.


That may be true, but mostly I think its not. Coaches & clubs talk about development, but b/f/s means a higher possibility to win and they will go with that every time. The bigger the club, the less reliance on "development" because they have (or will get) enough quantity to stay competitive, IMV. I don't think they believe that the b/f/s are more talented, just that they are more effective at that point.

They then "sell", play on the second team and at Ux your player will be on my top team.

Ultimately, I think this is systematic of a wider problem in US soccer which is apparent on the men's side (focus on b/f/s early loses the technical players) and will impact on the women's side in the next 5-10 years as the USWNT loses it dominance to the Euro sides who value technical above b/f/s.


----------



## Kante (Dec 18, 2019)

whatithink said:


> That may be true, but mostly I think its not. Coaches & clubs talk about development, but b/f/s means a higher possibility to win and they will go with that every time. The bigger the club, the less reliance on "development" because they have (or will get) enough quantity to stay competitive, IMV. I don't think they believe that the b/f/s are more talented, just that they are more effective at that point.
> 
> They then "sell", play on the second team and at Ux your player will be on my top team.
> 
> Ultimately, I think this is systematic of a wider problem in US soccer which is apparent on the men's side (focus on b/f/s early loses the technical players) and will impact on the women's side in the next 5-10 years as the USWNT loses it dominance to the Euro sides who value technical above b/f/s.


fair. so clarification. Coaches may not actually think b/f/s are more talented but rather than saying to families that Tier 1 team is 1st oldest, Tier 2 is 2nd oldest etc, Tier 1 players are represented to families as "best" and "best" is then interpreted (reasonably) as "most talented".

Simple fix here is for clubs/coaches to say that 1) older = significant competitive advantage, but is not necessarily most talented 2) be consistent about this representation to both families of tier 1 and not tier 1 3) have specific initiative to ID and cultivate most talented, regardless of age.


----------



## Hank Walker (Dec 18, 2019)

Boy, this shouldn't be so hard. No cutoff dates, no birth year that splits classmates, just graduation year. 2023's are all freshmen now, 2026's are all 6th graders, etc. 8th graders play with 8th graders, 3rd graders play with 3rd graders. When college coaches go to a showcase they can target a homogeneous grade of kids, which makes it easier for them. School friends stay with school friends. No date cutoff, just grad year.


----------



## espola (Dec 18, 2019)

Hank Walker said:


> Boy, this shouldn't be so hard. No cutoff dates, no birth year that splits classmates, just graduation year. 2023's are all freshmen now, 2026's are all 6th graders, etc. 8th graders play with 8th graders, 3rd graders play with 3rd graders. When college coaches go to a showcase they can target a homogeneous grade of kids, which makes it easier for them. School friends stay with school friends. No date cutoff, just grad year.


Good for rec - play with your school chums.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 18, 2019)

Hank Walker said:


> Boy, this shouldn't be so hard. No cutoff dates, no birth year that splits classmates, just graduation year. 2023's are all freshmen now, 2026's are all 6th graders, etc. 8th graders play with 8th graders, 3rd graders play with 3rd graders. When college coaches go to a showcase they can target a homogeneous grade of kids, which makes it easier for them. School friends stay with school friends. No date cutoff, just grad year.


Until you get a kid who was held back a year and has a mustache in 6th grade.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 18, 2019)

Hank Walker said:


> Boy, this shouldn't be so hard. No cutoff dates, no birth year that splits classmates, just graduation year. 2023's are all freshmen now, 2026's are all 6th graders, etc. 8th graders play with 8th graders, 3rd graders play with 3rd graders. When college coaches go to a showcase they can target a homogeneous grade of kids, which makes it easier for them. School friends stay with school friends. No date cutoff, just grad year.


Grad year is based on academics, not soccer.  

When a kid skips a grade, or two, do they also suddenly gain muscle mass and soccer skills?

When they are held back or delay kindergarten,  do they also get smaller?

Grad year will be popular among parents of older/redshirted kids, precisely because it gives those kids an unfair advantage.


----------



## espola (Dec 18, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Until you get a kid who was held back a year and has a mustache in 6th grade.


I have heard that it is the practice in some areas to start their kid in 1st Grade a year late so they will have a size and development advantage when he gets to high school.  That doesn't happen California, right?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Dec 18, 2019)

I've been involved in soccer for 40-years.  Not once have I seen anyone "pissed" because a single player left a team.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 18, 2019)

espola said:


> I have heard that it is the practice in some areas to start their kid in 1st Grade a year late so they will have a size and development advantage when he gets to high school.  That doesn't happen California, right?


Happens all the time.


----------



## Yak (Dec 18, 2019)

espola said:


> I have heard that it is the practice in some areas to start their kid in 1st Grade a year late so they will have a size and development advantage when he gets to high school.  That doesn't happen California, right?


Also seems to be remarkably common for aspiring football players to repeat 8th grade.


----------



## Kante (Dec 18, 2019)

espola said:


> I have heard that it is the practice in some areas to start their kid in 1st Grade a year late so they will have a size and development advantage when he gets to high school.  That doesn't happen California, right?


can't tell if this is sarcastic or genuinely asked. assuming genuine question, in each of our sons' SoCal kindergarten classes, about 25% of the boys were red-shirted.  the elementary school was about 65% white and it was mostly - but not entirely - the white families holding their boys' back. We considered it for our second son w/ early June dob, but decided to roll with it.


----------



## mlx (Dec 19, 2019)

So, is this happening or not? Any insider who knows this?


----------



## Riggins (Dec 29, 2019)

Let's assume this rumor is true and they go back to school year banding instead of birth year. Whether it's good or bad, there simply is no way it would be applied in 2020. They could announce it in January but it wouldn't take affect until the 2021 or even 2022 season. Simply because of logistics, clubs already having offers out, tournaments already filled with teams, etc.

So, we get a while year to argue the merits! 

PS: If they do make the change I hope they do away 9v9 while they are at it. Make 7v7 last a year longer if you want, but get into 11v11 sooner. The kids in second year of 9v9 just run corner to corner because the field is too small. Encourages crappy play and recruitment of "fast kids" over skilled.


----------



## Chalklines (Dec 29, 2019)

dad4 said:


> Grad year is based on academics, not soccer.
> 
> When a kid skips a grade, or two, do they also suddenly gain muscle mass and soccer skills?
> 
> ...


Theres a huge difference between a 17 year old boy vs 19 year old man child. Dont try to kid your self. The age gap depending on genetics and when puberty hits can make all the difference.

So yes the ability to gain MORE muscle strength/power skipping 2 grades is a reality ONLY if  genetics are on the kids side. So if moms 4'8 and dads 5'2 dont expect a competitive advantage if the doctor expects your son to max out at 5'6. (this is football related)


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Dec 29, 2019)

Chalklines said:


> Theres a huge difference between a 17 year old boy vs 19 year old man child. Dont try to kid your self. The age gap depending on genetics and when puberty hits can make all the difference.
> 
> So yes the ability to gain MORE muscle strength/power skipping 2 grades is a reality ONLY if  genetics are on the kids side. So if moms 4'8 and dads 5'2 dont expect a competitive advantage if the doctor expects your son to max out at 5'6. (this is football related)


True!  I remember being a 17 yo senior and couldn’t keep weight on my 6’-2”, 165 pound  frame and then I turned 18 and it felt like I could fill out my frame much easier.  By 19 yo I was 190-200 pounds so 2 yrs makes a huge difference.


----------



## timbuck (Dec 29, 2019)

Riggins said:


> Let's assume this rumor is true and they go back to school year banding instead of birth year. Whether it's good or bad, there simply is no way it would be applied in 2020. They could announce it in January but it wouldn't take affect until the 2021 or even 2022 season. Simply because of logistics, clubs already having offers out, tournaments already filled with teams, etc.
> 
> So, we get a while year to argue the merits!
> 
> PS: If they do make the change I hope they do away 9v9 while they are at it. Make 7v7 last a year longer if you want, but get into 11v11 sooner. The kids in second year of 9v9 just run corner to corner because the field is too small. Encourages crappy play and recruitment of "fast kids" over skilled.


Your comment really only pertains to so cal. Rest of the country isn’t having tryouts in December.


----------



## Dirtnap (Dec 29, 2019)

Riggins said:


> Let's assume this rumor is true and they go back to school year banding instead of birth year. Whether it's good or bad, there simply is no way it would be applied in 2020. They could announce it in January but it wouldn't take affect until the 2021 or even 2022 season. Simply because of logistics, clubs already having offers out, tournaments already filled with teams, etc.
> 
> So, we get a while year to argue the merits!
> 
> PS: If they do make the change I hope they do away 9v9 while they are at it. Make 7v7 last a year longer if you want, but get into 11v11 sooner. The kids in second year of 9v9 just run corner to corner because the field is too small. Encourages crappy play and recruitment of "fast kids" over skilled.


you mean the goalie 1 bouncing it too the other goalie is not fun .=)


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 30, 2019)

espola said:


> I have heard that it is the practice in some areas to start their kid in 1st Grade a year late so they will have a size and development advantage when he gets to high school.  That doesn't happen California, right?


That’s absolutely a trend.  My kids are the smallest and youngest in their grade.  Parents on purpose are holding back kids.  Even from an academic perspective some kids need to start school a little older to help them understand the school content. 

Going back to the old way doesn’t fix anything.


----------



## LASoccerMom (Dec 30, 2019)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> That’s absolutely a trend.  My kids are the smallest and youngest in their grade.  Parents on purpose are holding back kids.  Even from an academic perspective some kids need to start school a little older to help them understand the school content.
> 
> Going back to the old way doesn’t fix anything.


I am seeing parents have their kids repeat 8th grade. A few are doing it for academic/maturity reasons. But most of the ones I know have done it for athletics. Boys baseball and basketball. A basketball coach at a local private school with an elite program did it with his own kid and pushes the idea on parents of players he wants to recruit.


----------



## dad4 (Dec 30, 2019)

LASoccerMom said:


> I am seeing parents have their kids repeat 8th grade. A few are doing it for academic/maturity reasons. But most of the ones I know have done it for athletics. Boys baseball and basketball. A basketball coach at a local private school with an elite program did it with his own kid and pushes the idea on parents of players he wants to recruit.


Or, to be honest, fewer than 10 percent of kids are allowed to use the good sports facilities anyway. 

 Give varsity athletes the same field access as intramural athletes.  If the low skill athletes get no practice space and five games per semester, then that will have to do for the high skill kids, too.


----------



## Kicker4Life (Dec 30, 2019)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> That’s absolutely a trend.  My kids are the smallest and youngest in their grade.  Parents on purpose are holding back kids.  Even from an academic perspective some kids need to start school a little older to help them understand the school content.
> 
> Going back to the old way doesn’t fix anything.


It wasn’t by school year disregarding birth dates.  It just followed the school calendar. So if your child was born between 8/1/2005 and 7/31/2006 they would be on the u14 team.


----------



## outside! (Dec 31, 2019)

SoccerFan4Life said:


> Going back to the old way doesn’t fix anything.


The new way did not fix anything accept to force 2nd graders not play with their friends. All of the other discussion is arbitrary noise.


----------



## SoccerFan4Life (Dec 31, 2019)

outside! said:


> The new way did not fix anything accept to force 2nd graders not play with their friends. All of the other discussion is arbitrary noise.


I got news for you, your 2nd grader will not have the same friends in a few years.   LOL.  

 I see your point but my kids benefited from this new rule.  They still got to play with their school friends.    This is not a topic that we all should spend too much time talking about.  This is my last post on this one.


----------



## Bri’s-DAD (Dec 31, 2019)

Question??? Did this age band get passed?


----------



## jpeter (Dec 31, 2019)

Bri’s-DAD said:


> Question??? Did this age band get passed?


No just a rumor by some small town club league in the Midwest.  Never really up for any serious discussions beyond that


----------



## Soccerhelper (Dec 31, 2019)

Wow!!!


----------



## timbuck (Dec 31, 2019)

jpeter said:


> No just a rumor by some small town club league in the Midwest.  Never really up for any serious discussions beyond that


I think the rumor was that it was going to be discussed at some January federation meeting.


----------



## Lambchop (Dec 31, 2019)

mlx said:


> So, is this happening or not? Any insider who knows this?


Yes, absolutely, all the time for a variety of reasons, not always athletics. (Re. being held back a year in school)


----------

