Another US Soccer idea...

[FlashDrive]

I think at this point it is important to recognise that bio-banding doesn't just mean the bigger, more mature kids play against older players. It is very important for the smaller, later developers to be in an environment where they can still develop their technical skills. For too long, the US has lacked technical players, usually because they get over-run and struggle in a physical game, simply because they have matured later.

Harry Kane is the newest example of this in England, he was a very late developer and through concepts like this, was able to stay at his club and train with appropriate players until he finally grew to match his team mates.

Lets face it, we have all seen a 14/15 year old kid who has great technical skill, but just isn't quick or strong enough and struggles in the competitive games. Rather than cut him, this allows for those players to remain within a system until they are fully grown.

all kidding and my sarcasm aside.. the issue in the US is club soccer. They all focus on making sure they make teams FIRST. Most have strict playing up policies and don't allow it. Moving your advanced Flight1 05 to the 04 group means as a club you just weakened the 05 Flight1 team. Clubs know those advanced 05's will develop quicker in the 04 group, but they will avoid it to the fullest. They will look the other way and make a million excuses to make sure your advanced 05 stays on the flight1 05 team. Why you ask? well the advanced 05 will bring WINS in the 05 group - that translates to results for the club and obviously that will draw more talent in the seasons to come.

without mentioning club names, just went thru this with one of my kids.. DA offer was made exclusive to her age group and mandatory. We suggested she should play up instead since she was ahead of the pack. I should have recorded the excuses that were given and the wall put up on this request, beyond hilarious. Well, thankfully I don't believe in the US DA system, she'll be playing up elsewhere

 

[Bananacorner]

The concern I have with bio-banding is that I'm not certain height is the best predictor of maturity. Sure, it correlates to maturation, but someone mentioned secondary sexual characteristics and there are many others. So what about the kids who happen to grow in height and are at 90%, but they grew so fast that they are gawky and their feet are 3 sizes too big and their speed and skill suffers? This happens very frequently, I see it all the time. Sally used to have the best skills on the team, but now she is tripping over the ball and even over her own feet. Oh, and Sally just grew 3 inches in 6 months and her feet are now size 10. All of those kids would look like complete failures if made to play up and be pushed out of the system before they had a chance to catch up to their height.

I realize no predictor is perfect, so but what about using more than just one variable (height) to determine maturation?

Although a much better predictor of maturity. I don't think we are going to x ray growth plates.

 

[Keepermom2]

I applaud the US for finally bringing bio-banding to everyone's attention. It's growing rapidly in the UK. To those who haven't heard of it, a calculation is made of a player's potential future height, based on their gender, current age, current height and parents ages and heights. From there, a player is given a % based on how close they are to reaching their peak height velocity. Players are then grouped as such: 80-85%, 85-90% or even closer if the player pool is large.

Wonder how the adopted child who has no information on the birth parents is calculated...I would be very interested because I have only 1 thing to go by for my children who I adopted from 2 different countries and that is the growth charts. The growth chart's height prediction has been 100% accurate for my 17 year old and my younger daughter who is 11 has always remained in the 85th to 90th percentile for height. I can only presume the chart prediction of her height being about 5'8" is going to be accurate because I recently had to move her up to a ladies size 9 shoe and her legs are longer than mine and I am 5'6". Would the clubs believe that or would I have to substantiate that? I am sure that isn't the only nuance situation.

In our lawsuit happy country I think US Soccer is asking for big trouble! I can see it now...Class Action lawsuit against US Soccer and/or soccer clubs for height discrimination.

 

[ItsCalledSoccer]

The concern I have with bio-banding is that I'm not certain height is the best predictor of maturity. Sure, it correlates to maturation, but someone mentioned secondary sexual characteristics and there are many others. So what about the kids who happen to grow in height and are at 90%, but they grew so fast that they are gawky and their feet are 3 sizes too big and their speed and skill suffers? This happens very frequently, I see it all the time. Sally used to have the best skills on the team, but now she is tripping over the ball and even over her own feet. Oh, and Sally just grew 3 inches in 6 months and her feet are now size 10. All of those kids would look like complete failures if made to play up and be pushed out of the system before they had a chance to catch up to their height.

I realize no predictor is perfect, so but what about using more than just one variable (height) to determine maturation?

Although a much better predictor of maturity. I don't think we are going to x ray growth plates.

I understand where you are coming from, I'm sure there have been cases of this in the system. But once again, its not something where Sally would be training every week with these 90% players and would lose all her confidence. She would still be training within her own team and as part of coaching those age groups, coaches should be able to identify when someone is going through a growth spurt, losing their coordination and recognise how to deal with this and maintain confidence levels within that player.

Ultimately yes, there is no perfect way to put everyone in the exact category they should be in, and it is good to have spells where you are the dominant player in a group and also the weakest player in the group, it develops the player socially and psychologically which helps later in life. My biggest season of development as a player was when I was thrown into the first team (I was playing reserves) and I was well below the standard of everyone else, but you stick at it and improve. I definitely needed a season of that as a young player.

From the research I found on this topic, the average team at teenage years has up to 15% difference of their maturity levels, so at those elite levels, if we can reduce that gap to 5%, not all the time, but enough to maintain confidence in the players and keep players within a system while they grow, then it's all positive in my opinion.

 

[ItsCalledSoccer]

Wonder how the adopted child who has no information on the birth parents is calculated...I would be very interested because I have only 1 thing to go by for my children who I adopted from 2 different countries and that is the growth charts. The growth chart's height prediction has been 100% accurate for my 17 year old and my younger daughter who is 11 has always remained in the 85th to 90th percentile for height. I can only presume the chart prediction of her height being about 5'8" is going to be accurate because I recently had to move her up to a ladies size 9 shoe and her legs are longer than mine and I am 5'6". Would the clubs believe that or would I have to substantiate that? I am sure that isn't the only nuance situation.

In our lawsuit happy country I think US Soccer is asking for big trouble! I can see it now...Class Action lawsuit against US Soccer and/or soccer clubs for height discrimination.

Good question, I have no idea how they would calculate it without all of the information required. Again, I imagine they will only use this at the top level so I cant see it bringing up a lot of cases like this. Yes it would be pure chaos if all SCDSL/CSL style leagues started introducing this, but regular leagues around the world don't and I'm sure US leagues wont either. No one permanently trains within bio-banded teams anywhere in the world, as much as I know.

 

[MWN]

All,

Taking a step back, in England (a few years ago), the Academy system noticed they had a problem. That problem was that teams (note, the article is based on the school year, not calendar year) had only 14% of kids born in the bottom 1/3 of the year:

A few years ago some at the Football Association and Premier League began wondering whether this was misguided. A study discovered 57 per cent of boys aged nine-to-16 in Premier League academies were born in the first third of the school year, but only 14 per cent in the last third. In society as a whole births are evenly spread through the year.

One of the clubs most intrigued was Southampton. The birth dates of their academy players reflected the relative-age effect but, says Alek Gross, the club’s head of sport science: “When we looked at senior England squads and British-born Premier League players there was an even spread.” Saints realised the players making the grade did not reflect the birth-date profile of those in their academy system. “We were potentially recruiting players, and retaining them in the academy, based on physical presence,” said Gross. (Independent Article)

Fast forward to 2018. The USSF also appreciates that clubs in the DA have a tendency to build teams and admit kids to their programs based on physical proneness and not necessarily skill. This concept of bio-banding gives those DOCs a new tool and emphasis to not ignore the potentially "physically late bloomers." At best it may effect just a few kids (2-4) on each team that retain a roster spot and stay in the DA system.

Hate reading these little black squiggly lines called words? Gotcha, here is a video on the subject from ACD Bournemouth:

Here is a more scientific presentation:

 

[Mystery Train]

Bio-Banding Supplements Academy Training and its not a Replacement

If we look at the English clubs that are experimenting with Bio-Banding, it has been reserved for the Academy system (top 1% of youth players) and is used purely for tournaments, simply a supplemental addition to the existing academy teams. So there is little likelihood that we would see this experiment outside the DA program because it would be a waste to use it on kids that have no reasonable shot at professional or national team play.

Soccer In the US Is Not a legitimate Revenue Sport (yet) that eliminate pay to play at the higher levels.

With regard to Pay-2-Play. Obviously, the US is a long, long, long way off from having anything close to the self-supported academy's in England due to the following:

(1) we have no legitimate professional leagues capable of playing at a high level on par with European and Latin American teams, thus, the revenue generating capabilities of the MLS lags terribly behind the rest of the world. As such, there isn't enough money to train/invest in youth soccer players by the so-called pro leagues (MLS and USL);

(2) the USSF and Players Council have so far rejected supporting FIFA's solidarity and training payments, thereby, eliminating incentives for all but the MLS and non-MLS clubs to "invest" in players. (see, https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/clu...tructuring-us-mens-youth-development_aid43811). Note, the only incentive MLS clubs have is the "home grown player" exception; and,

(3) we have no viable 3rd and below tiers (levels) that would support investment in youth programs. Compare that to England were they have over 11 tiers (levels) and more below that. To put this is perspective, the Level 7 Norther Premier League (not to be confused with the Premier League) Coalville Town Club's transfer value is $518k pounds on 13 players compares to the LA Galaxy's Academy (3rd team, comparable to a 4th level) with a value of 608k pounds on 33 players.

Pay to play is here to stay until soccer can displace baseball (which BTW is a pay to play sport).

I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN . I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments. I retract my criticisms. Except one. US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."

As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values). I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it were so. Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.

 

[Mystery Train]

Soccer In the US Is Not a legitimate Revenue Sport (yet) that eliminate pay to play at the higher levels.

One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .

US Soccer's most recent audited financial statements (2016) indicate that the organization has 93 million in "undesignated" investments under the assets column. I'm not a finance guy so I don't know what exactly that means, but I do know what assets are, what investments are and the definition of "undesignated." What I take away from that is that US Soccer is sitting on a pile of money.

How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system? How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer? To set something up that would bring the beautiful game to everyone regardless of economic status and collegiate ambition? To set up a system of broadening the talent pool of US Soccer players that could utilize Bio-Banding and emphasize technical development and long-term thinking over trophies, rankings, and scholarship offers for 16 year olds? This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

 

[MWN]

I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN . I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments. I retract my criticisms. Except one. US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."

As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values). I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it were so. Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.

Thank you for the compliment. To your point regarding pay-to-play, from my perspective there are two things the USSF can realistically do today that would impact elite talent identification and development:

1. Take the lead on implementing a system for solidarity and training fee payments (as discussed above).

2. Recognize the player development (men's side) in the US is decades (and will remain decades) behind the other soccer playing nations (Klinsmann did). The USSF needs to go to FIFA and demand additional exceptions to Article 19. We need pave a path to get our legitimate elite youth players into the European and Latin American systems as soon as possible.

3. Demand two changes at the MLS level to make it a marketable league. Eliminate the restrictions on foreign players and eliminate incentives to hold back MLS players from "real leagues" around the world. Note that I didn't mention relegation and promotion because that is akin to peeking up Wonder Woman's skirt while pissing in the wind.

 

[MWN]

One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .

US Soccer's most recent audited financial statements (2016) indicate that the organization has 93 million in "undesignated" investments under the assets column. I'm not a finance guy so I don't know what exactly that means, but I do know what assets are, what investments are and the definition of "undesignated." What I take away from that is that US Soccer is sitting on a pile of money.

How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system? How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer? To set something up that would bring the beautiful game to everyone regardless of economic status and collegiate ambition? To set up a system of broadening the talent pool of US Soccer players that could utilize Bio-Banding and emphasize technical development and long-term thinking over trophies, rankings, and scholarship offers for 16 year olds? This isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

I'll answer that, but so I'm giving you good numbers, do you want just men or men and women? Is the parameter a take over of the existing DA system or are we scaling it down or increasing its size?

 

[El Clasico]

One legit question for you on this point about pay-to-play . . .

How much would US Soccer have to designate out of that 93 mil in order to establish a better youth system? How much would it take to by-pass the youth P2P economy that is burgeoning across the country, and revolutionize how America embraces soccer? .

1 Billion ++

 

[El Clasico]

1. Take the lead on implementing a system for solidarity and training fee payments (as discussed above).

2. Recognize the player development (men's side) in the US is decades (and will remain decades) behind the other soccer playing nations (Klinsmann did). The USSF needs to go to FIFA and demand additional exceptions to Article 19. We need pave a path to get our legitimate elite youth players into the European and Latin American systems as soon as possible.

3. Demand two changes at the MLS level to make it a marketable league. Eliminate the restrictions on foreign players and eliminate incentives to hold back MLS players from "real leagues" around the world..

I knew eventually we would have to agree on something.

 

[Mystery Train]

I'll answer that, but so I'm giving you good numbers, do you want just men or men and women? Is the parameter a take over of the existing DA system or are we scaling it down or increasing its size?

I'm thinking of both men and women. I was thinking of a true "blank page" re-think of youth soccer in general. To me, DA is a compromise where US Soccer is trying to do what I expressed in an earlier comment: feeding solutions (various mandates about age grouping, training time vs game time, development initiatives) into a broken machine. In other words, these are just the same DoC's, same coaches, clubs, same economic system as before, same values, now just dancing to USSF's drum. And not really getting any lasting positive traction from it. So, I would say for the purposes of setting up a straw-man proposal, just take over the existing system, burn it down, start from scratch.

 

[MWN]

I knew eventually we would have to agree on something.

We agree?

Let me add "There are three types of people in this world, those that can count and those that can't." I apparently fall into the later category based on the opening paragraph.

 

[Lambchop]

I always appreciate your replies and content on this forum, @MWN . I admit to a knee-jerk reaction on Bio Banding without much background data in my initial dismissive comments. I retract my criticisms. Except one. US Soccer still defines "ambition without reality."

As for the pay-to-play situation, you accurately describe one of the major barriers in moving past it (there are others that might be even more fundamentally difficult to overcome, having to do with our societal values). I've never stated that there is a viable alternative right now in the US, but that doesn't stop me from wishing it wee so. Thanks again for your logical explanation and discussion.

Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor ! Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming, ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field, rugby, what else, I know I am missing some. Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse! No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!

 

[Mystery Train]

Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor ! Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming, ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field, rugby, what else, I know I am missing some. Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse! No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!

Ah, hello there Hyperbolic Fallacy, my old friend. Glad you could come out to play. Wonder when Moving the Goalposts, Red Herring, and Nirvana Fallacy will show up...

 

[Mystery Train]

Wouldn't it be great if every kid could participate in the sport of their choice without paying! Every sport and athletic endeavor ! Tennis, gymnastics, soccer, football, baseball, volleyball, wrestling, swimming, diving, synchronized swimming, ice skating, hockey, water polo, ice hockey, lacrosse, basketball, dance, cheer leading, skiing, snow boarding, surfing, golf, rowing, soft ball, running, track and field, rugby, what else, I know I am missing some. Table tennis, bad mitten, pool, equestrian jumping, dressage, bob sledding, ice racing, archery etc etc etc. Growing up I saved my money to take equestrian lessons but had to stop because I couldn't afford it. I was really getting good at jumping, I would have loved to continue training but alas I couldn't afford it or a horse! No Olympics for me. Also tried swimming but had to give that up too for many reasons. In a perfect world, all our children could participate in the sport of their choice, wouldn't that be something!

FYI, mocking aside, I don't expect it for free. But the system that reigns now is arguably not working in the best interests of the sport and US Soccer needs to reach beyond the suburbs if it is to transform soccer in the US and fulfill it's mission of making the US into a soccer power.

 

[timbuck]

Since the topic has shifted a bit to money and funding.
Did anyone see this Deal announced?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...tor-the-performance-of-4-million-players/amp/

US Soccer signed multi year with for a little over $1 billion to outfit DA players with smart bras with fitness tracking technology.
$200 million per year. But I still gotta pay $550 for a “D” license.

 

[46n2]

this thread...

 

[MWN]

I'm thinking of both men and women. I was thinking of a true "blank page" re-think of youth soccer in general. To me, DA is a compromise where US Soccer is trying to do what I expressed in an earlier comment: feeding solutions (various mandates about age grouping, training time vs game time, development initiatives) into a broken machine. In other words, these are just the same DoC's, same coaches, clubs, same economic system as before, same values, now just dancing to USSF's drum. And not really getting any lasting positive traction from it. So, I would say for the purposes of setting up a straw-man proposal, just take over the existing system, burn it down, start from scratch.

Ok, so let's say the DA takes over the existing DA teams from all the clubs on the men's and woman's side as it currently exists. The DA is now responsible for:

1. Paying Admins (Academy Directors and Technical Directors across nation at each club) (about $13.2 M)
2. Paying Coaches ($43.8M)
3. Training Fields ($4.3M)
4. Games and Referees ($2.4M)
5. Travel (U15+) ($15.3M)
6. Residential Education (MLS teams only) ($20.1M)

This would conservatively add about $99.3M in expenses to the USSF budget assuming it took over the existing DA teams and players. Here is my DA-TakeOver spreadsheet and assumptions. There would likely be around $25M to $30M in takeover costs, but let's ignore those.

It currently receives right around $4M in Youth membership fees according to its 2016 Audited Financials.

The USSF's net assets as of year end 2017 are $148M (Form 990)

Taking over the existing DA system would require the USSF add an additional $100M in revenue or basically double its existing revenue per year to support the DA program because it would be bankrupt by year 2, if not earlier.

Since the USSF cannot add more dollars through existing broadcast rights until 2022, its stuck.

Speaking of broadcast rights, the USSF receives about $30M per year as part of the joint MLS/USSF Sum deal, the MLS receives about $60M. Its likely a little undervalued, but its guaranteed and the USSF comes out a winner especially with the failure of the men's team to make the World Cup.

To put this into perspective, the domestic broadcast rights that the Premiere league receives is $1.5 Billion per year v. $60 Million per year for the MLS. Heck, NBC pays nearly $167M per year to broadcast the Premiere league in the US market.

 

[MWN]

Since the topic has shifted a bit to money and funding.
Did anyone see this Deal announced?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...tor-the-performance-of-4-million-players/amp/

US Soccer signed multi year with for a little over $1 billion to outfit DA players with smart bras with fitness tracking technology.
$200 million per year. But I still gotta pay $550 for a “D” license.

@timbuck, if you read the article, US Soccer paid "zilch" for the technology and STATSports is outfitting the DA players for free, with the hopes that the rest of the 4M registered soccer players across the US will say "whoaaaa I need that, here is my $100." Again, the USSF isn't paying a dime for this technology.