Age Band Change (again)?

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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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!!!
 
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 said:
No way this change happens. Birth year is here to stay.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
espola said:
What does this discussion have to do with Surf Cup?
Click to expand...
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 + ...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top