Get ready folks

[Thatonedad]

Yea, I don't get what's being conveyed.

It sounds like someone is trying to correlate/link what they think is an issue (RAE) with what they think is a solution (BY).

However, the topics are completely separate.

Also somehow trapped players are also in the mix because ????

What's being argued is not logical it's all about emotion and trying to manipulate others to get them to make a change.

Yes I agree that from each persons point of view it may seem logical or illogical to change to SY.

When BY was established it was presented as something that would lessen the effects of RAE in youth club soccer. Which if you use the data provided shows that isn’t true. This just gives ammo towards the SY cause. They have a well documented slide show about it with more info that I was unable to get.

But I think the point they are trying to make is if RAE will always be an issue why add layers of extra problems for the majority of youth soccer players. They have soccer people who are better at articulating this than me. But from what I understand is for every one soccer person not on board two are. USSF has no desire to change things back but idk if they will fight against it of the majority wants to go back.

By Nov 1 I’ll have a good idea if this will really happen or not.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

But being thrown on a mixed new team is exactly what's going to happen in college. Wouldn't it make sense for college bound players to have that experience when they're playing at the youth level?

The ability to be a standout on a mixed team is exactly what recruiters are looking for.

The ability to beat other teams as a team isn't what college recruiters are looking for unless they're planning to recruit the entire team.

and that's exactly why these "trapped" players right now are at an advantage.

 

[watfly]

Yes I agree that from each persons point of view it may seem logical or illogical to change to SY.

When BY was established it was presented as something that would lessen the effects of RAE in youth club soccer. Which if you use the data provided shows that isn’t true. This just gives ammo towards the SY cause. They have a well documented slide show about it with more info that I was unable to get.

But I think the point they are trying to make is if RAE will always be an issue why add layers of extra problems for the majority of youth soccer players. They have soccer people who are better at articulating this than me. But from what I understand is for every one soccer person not on board two are. USSF has no desire to change things back but idk if they will fight against it of the majority wants to go back.

By Nov 1 I’ll have a good idea if this will really happen or not.

Verbatim US Soccer's RAE rationalization for birth year change in 2017:

The focus moves away from bigger, faster, stronger

-Changing to birth year registration doesn’t eliminate relative age effect (RAE) because whenever there is a defined age range, someone will be the oldest and someone will be the youngest

-However, this change does help better understand and account for RAE

-Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month relative to his or her peer group and level of performance

-This should help combat focusing on kids that appear to be better simply because 6 they are up to 364 days older than a teammate or opponent

Now if any of you parents that had kids playing in 2017, particularly youngers, and you want to torture yourself, you can read below all of the "Player Development Initiatives", like BY, buildout line, small-sides, etc and the claimed benefits (aka BS). You can thank me later.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.ussdcc.com/users/148963/897090_eng-october2017pdi.pdf

While done with good intentions, the initiatives have done nothing to improve player development and the landscape has only gotten worse in the last 7 years.

 

[Thatonedad]

and that's exactly why these "trapped" players right now are at an advantage.

Yes from what I understand there is some upside if a trapped player can continue to stay at the top level. But they are running into issues until the end of their journey.

Which all kids have to face some level of adversity, the reason for the SY push the way I understand it, is that if RAE will always be present when we talk about a 1 year time frame, the trapped player are getting hit with RAE and additional issues. Where if we went school year RAE would be the less of an issue according to data, and no more players without teams for any period of time or in a weird recruiting spot compared to other players on the same team.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Verbatim US Soccer's RAE rationalization for birth year change in 2017:

The focus moves away from bigger, faster, stronger

-Changing to birth year registration doesn’t eliminate relative age effect (RAE) because whenever there is a defined age range, someone will be the oldest and someone will be the youngest

-However, this change does help better understand and account for RAE

-Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month relative to his or her peer group and level of performance

-This should help combat focusing on kids that appear to be better simply because 6 they are up to 364 days older than a teammate or opponent

Now if any of you parents that had kids playing in 2017, particularly youngers, and you want to torture yourself, you can read below all of the "Player Development Initiatives", like BY, buildout line, small-sides, etc and the claimed benefits (aka BS). You can thank me later.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static.ussdcc.com/users/148963/897090_eng-october2017pdi.pdf

While done with good intentions, the initiatives have done nothing to improve player development and the landscape has only gotten worse in the last 7 years.

Just read through the pdf. It all makes sense to me.

1. Aligning all the leagues on BY makes it so it's easy for everyone to play against each other. (At the expense of trapped players which I don't believe is a real issue)

2. Focus on small sided games when players are younger. Totally makes sense to me smaller fields for Littles means more touches and more action.

3. Build out line mandate is silly to me. Get rid of it.

Seems to me that everything US Soccer was trying to do (other than the stupid build out line) was positive. RAE is going to happen no matter what calender date is chosen.

It all comes down to do clubs see value in aligning on a single date Jan 1st that the rest of the world has chosen. The downside of this is that players from Aug to Sept will be forced to "play up" a grade in league. This seems reasonable to me. If RAE is real you might as well have the Aug-Dec players play up since only the best of the best are going to make it through either way.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

That actually makes sense + I think is a good idea.

It would also make it so showcase games aren't counted in ranking calculations.

Potentially if showcase games aren't counted in the rankings it would open the door for ECNL, GA, NAL, Socal, etc to all participate in the same showcase events. Which I think would be a benefit to the entire youth soccer community.

This is making the assumption that one thing will change (rules for age groups in showcases), and one thing will stay the same (SR rankings right now follow birth year groups).

But if the change was actually made, there is no reason SR or any other ranking app couldn't accommodate the change and factor in the showcase teams into their rankings. Yes - there would have to be some decisions made, like keeping the teams as completely separate entities from their adjacent teams still going by birthyear, or combining them. But as long as the showcase results are posted electronically as they are now and aren't intentionally hidden from public view, there is no reason these teams couldn't be rated/ranked just as easily.

Whether people would care about showcase team ratings, or they would discount them entirely, is another question to be answered over time.

 

[watfly]

Just read through the pdf. It all makes sense to me.

1. Aligning all the leagues on BY makes it so it's easy for everyone to play against each other. (At the expense of trapped players which I don't believe is a real issue)

2. Focus on small sided games when players are younger. Totally makes sense to me smaller fields for Littles means more touches and more action.

3. Build out line mandate is silly to me. Get rid of it.

Seems to me that everything US Soccer was trying to do (other than the stupid build out line) was positive. RAE is going to happen no matter what calender date is chosen.

It all comes down to do clubs see value in aligning on a single date Jan 1st that the rest of the world has chosen. The downside of this is that players from Aug to Sept will be forced to "play up" a grade in league. This seems reasonable to me. If RAE is real you might as well have the Aug-Dec players play up since only the best of the best are going to make it through either way.

The SY vs BY change was much to do about nothing. Some temporary distress, but after a year it was all but forgotten. I thought the BY change made sense despite the fact my son was a September. Mostly because it was less confusing to me, ha, ha.

Like I said, well intentioned, but only dabbled along the fringes of US soccer issues. BY was just drawing a different line in the sand, small-sided already existed with futsal, and like you said, build-out was silly. (Truth be told the BO line caused more confusion than anything else). These did nothing to actually address some of the main problems like "win now" and "size over skill".

 

[Carlsbad7]

This is making the assumption that one thing will change (rules for age groups in showcases), and one thing will stay the same (SR rankings right now follow birth year groups).

But if the change was actually made, there is no reason SR or any other ranking app couldn't accommodate the change and factor in the showcase teams into their rankings. Yes - there would have to be some decisions made, like keeping the teams as completely separate entities from their adjacent teams still going by birthyear, or combining them. But as long as the showcase results are posted electronically as they are now and aren't intentionally hidden from public view, there is no reason these teams couldn't be rated/ranked just as easily.

Whether people would care about showcase team ratings, or they would discount them entirely, is another question to be answered over time.

Right, I agree that as long as the games were posted somewhere that they'd be able to be included in the rankings.

Personally if showcase teams were BY and league teams were CY I wouldn't want showcase results associated with league team rankings.

The only way it could work would be to make showcase results in the overall ranking of the team worth something like 20% less than league games.

 

[watfly]

This is making the assumption that one thing will change (rules for age groups in showcases), and one thing will stay the same (SR rankings right now follow birth year groups).

But if the change was actually made, there is no reason SR or any other ranking app couldn't accommodate the change and factor in the showcase teams into their rankings. Yes - there would have to be some decisions made, like keeping the teams as completely separate entities from their adjacent teams still going by birthyear, or combining them. But as long as the showcase results are posted electronically as they are now and aren't intentionally hidden from public view, there is no reason these teams couldn't be rated/ranked just as easily.

Whether people would care about showcase team ratings, or they would discount them entirely, is another question to be answered over time.

Why the need for rankings? I've heard people argue that tournaments need it to seed teams, but that can be easily done by looking at records and leagues. Blowouts are more of a function of the relative balance of the teams that enter rather than bad seeding.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

The only way it could work would be to make showcase results in the overall ranking of the team worth something like 20% less than league games.

Disagree. It works just fine now in predicting the performance of teams on the field, whether they are playing a useless early league game against an inconsequential opponent, or a national championship game. There is no need to segment how much each individual game is worth - it doesn't matter.

Why the need for rankings? I've heard people argue that tournaments need it to seed teams, but that can be easily done by looking at records and leagues. Blowouts are more of a function of the relative balance of the teams that enter rather than bad seeding.

Why the need for keeping score? Ratings/rankings give an objective answer about whether this team is predicted to beat this other team. They do a much more comprehensive job than just looking at the current standings table - although they would match it pretty closely if all teams in question only had the game history of that same standings table. They can be used by tournament directors to make seedings as close as possible or desired, while historically tournament seeding has often been pretty poor.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Disagree. It works just fine now in predicting the performance of teams on the field, whether they are playing a useless early league game against an inconsequential opponent, or a national championship game. There is no need to segment how much each individual game is worth - it doesn't matter.

But you'd be adding data in from games to teams that have completely different rosters and at events where teams aren't playing to win.

Doesn't seem like a good representation of what a team is capable of.

It would be like using preseason NFL games to predict league games.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

To a certain extent, teams are *always* playing to win. Though those that lose will loudly exclaim that winning wasn't their priority. It's understandable that for pre-season games, showcases, friendlies, or any other category of game might have some differing objectives, where winning isn't as high on the priority list as it would be for a single-elimination playoff game. But scores are kept to see which team is performing better than the other, and while the data might not mean as much to the coach or spectators (for the reasons stated), it is good enough data to add to the how that particular team performs when on the field.

It's the same thing with some of the highly competitive teams that sometimes play entire rosters of the year younger team while registered as an older team. Of course we can look at the team and state that it's not even the same team, why are they adding to the same game history. But then you look at the results of that game history for the past few dozen games - and it doesn't matter. The team rating is still a very good predictor about how that team would be expected to perform for the next game. Some would want all data that isn't perfect to be thrown out - but that's not necessary or even helpful. It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. Same with showcase games. Including them is more helpful than completely ignoring them.

 

[watfly]

Disagree. It works just fine now in predicting the performance of teams on the field, whether they are playing a useless early league game against an inconsequential opponent, or a national championship game. There is no need to segment how much each individual game is worth - it doesn't matter.


Why the need for keeping score? Ratings/rankings give an objective answer about whether this team is predicted to beat this other team. They do a much more comprehensive job than just looking at the current standings table - although they would match it pretty closely if all teams in question only had the game history of that same standings table. They can be used by tournament directors to make seedings as close as possible or desired, while historically tournament seeding has often been pretty poor.

Personally, I think there is far too much weight given to tournaments and it feeds into what is wrong with US Soccer. Half the tournaments these days seem like inter-Club (name) competitions anyway (i.e. Albion - Hesperia vs. Albion - Descanso). Anyone else notice how bad the quality of play is for the last games of a tournament? More a battle of attrition than anything else. Yeah, tournaments can be fun, but many teams compete in far too many tournaments. In my mind, tournaments are more for the youngers and the parents bragging rights. I don't see how they make sense for teens other than a periodic showcase. Like others on this forum have said, how many kids remember a tournament win a couple years after it happens. Even Surf Cup is not anything like it used to be. On occasion, I secretly dreaded winning another tourney game to qualify for the playoff for Sunday evening or worse Monday morning.

 

[whatithink]

Personally, I think there is far too much weight given to tournaments and it feeds into what is wrong with US Soccer. Half the tournaments these days seem like inter-Club (name) competitions anyway (i.e. Albion - Hesperia vs. Albion - Descanso). Anyone else notice how bad the quality of play is for the last games of a tournament? More a battle of attrition than anything else. Yeah, tournaments can be fun, but many teams compete in far too many tournaments. In my mind, tournaments are more for the youngers and the parents bragging rights. I don't see how they make sense for teens other than a periodic showcase. Like others on this forum have said, how many kids remember a tournament win a couple years after it happens. Even Surf Cup is not anything like it used to be. On occasion, I secretly dreaded winning another tourney game to qualify for the playoff for Sunday evening or worse Monday morning.

100%. I've booked return flights before the knock outs for tournies in hope and expectation that the team will not progress. Some of that comes from teams in tournies being scratch teams and no relationship to the normal team. That also makes a mockery of the ranking impact. I've been to many Surf Cups and (being from AZ) its always pre-season and we could care less about winning, its just a bonding exercise with lots of beach and play time, with some soccer rolled in. We never wanted to be in a final as we wanted to be on the road back to AZ. I've had a couple of nightmare scenarios leaving CA at 7PM on a Sunday night which even winning the tournament didn't make up for!

 

[Carlsbad7]

Personally, I think there is far too much weight given to tournaments and it feeds into what is wrong with US Soccer. Half the tournaments these days seem like inter-Club (name) competitions anyway (i.e. Albion - Hesperia vs. Albion - Descanso). Anyone else notice how bad the quality of play is for the last games of a tournament? More a battle of attrition than anything else. Yeah, tournaments can be fun, but many teams compete in far too many tournaments. In my mind, tournaments are more for the youngers and the parents bragging rights. I don't see how they make sense for teens other than a periodic showcase. Like others on this forum have said, how many kids remember a tournament win a couple years after it happens. Even Surf Cup is not anything like it used to be. On occasion, I secretly dreaded winning another tourney game to qualify for the playoff for Sunday evening or worse Monday morning.

This is why like the concept of having showcases be SY and everything else BY.

You'd get 3-4 games and you'd know when you can drive home before the event

The winner wouldn't matter because of the SY / BY differences which also means the result wouldn't count against / for league or rankings.

You could do cross league showcase events because the results don't matter.

Scouts would be there watching players.

 

[Dominic]

What governing body has the authority to make this change? Will it be a collective agreement between all leagues?
What league has the most numbers right now? Cal South was in control, not sure if that is the case anymore.

 

[Thatonedad]

What governing body has the authority to make this change? Will it be a collective agreement between all leagues?
What league has the most numbers right now? Cal South was in control, not sure if that is the case anymore.

I believe if USYS and US Club decide to align with new cutoffs it will be pushed through, together they make up the majority of youth leagues. I’m sure USSF has to give the okay as well.

 

[Grace T.]

I believe if USYS and US Club decide to align with new cutoffs it will be pushed through, together they make up the majority of youth leagues. I’m sure USSF has to give the okay as well.

The MLS is a stumbling block, particularly since it implicates their academies, unless everyone decides to go forward without MLS Next and keep them separate.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

Just read through the pdf. It all makes sense to me.

1. Aligning all the leagues on BY makes it so it's easy for everyone to play against each other. (At the expense of trapped players which I don't believe is a real issue)

2. Focus on small sided games when players are younger. Totally makes sense to me smaller fields for Littles means more touches and more action.

3. Build out line mandate is silly to me. Get rid of it.

Seems to me that everything US Soccer was trying to do (other than the stupid build out line) was positive. RAE is going to happen no matter what calender date is chosen.

It all comes down to do clubs see value in aligning on a single date Jan 1st that the rest of the world has chosen. The downside of this is that players from Aug to Sept will be forced to "play up" a grade in league. This seems reasonable to me. If RAE is real you might as well have the Aug-Dec players play up since only the best of the best are going to make it through either way.

Have you watched a boys U9 game with a build out line? Without the build out line they would never get it out of the back. They barely do with a build out line.

 

[whatithink]

Have you watched a boys U9 game with a build out line? Without the build out line they would never get it out of the back. They barely do with a build out line.

Yes, the whole point is to encourage playing versus the kid with the biggest kick just launching it (or the keeper). It makes complete sense but coaches ....