Age Band Change (again)?

[timmyh]

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

https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulli...sU7xW_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]

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

https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulli...sU7xW_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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

https://cincysc.com/us-soccer-mulli...sU7xW_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?

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.

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.

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

 

[Grace T.]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

(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...)