whatithink
GOLD
I expect so.
They don't choose, the club does, and if the kids who are a year older, and used to playing against kids 18-21 months older still are likely better than them.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
Yes, generally older kids are more mature, bigger, faster, and have better coordination.
I find it ironic that parents are worried their child will have to play against older kids( born 5-12 months older) or get knocked down to the 2nd team….while ignoring that those Aug- Dec kids set to benefit…have always had to compete against kids almost a year older.
I always thought the change to BY was stupid..and a decrease in numbers coincided with this change. Especially when kids start in rec, they want to play with their friends when they start.
I agree, you're never going to get a straight answer from parents. Responses will always be though the lens of what's best for their kid.
This is one of the reasons I prefer BY. It works, its what most of the world uses, and it doesn't introduce variables like homeshoolers or redshirts. I realize that people are saying that it's SY but with a defined cutoff date of Aug 1st. Maybe I'm just cynical about youth soccer at this point but I don't believe clubs will be able to maintain the cutoff date without adding accommodations for exceptions. Over time exceptions will become the rule.
Karlton Athletic
SILVER
We're at a club with an NL and 2 RL teams. The 2nd RL team was added just before last season and was a bit of scramble to put together. Officially, the 2nd RL team was supposed to be equal to the 1st, but we all know the 2nd team is really the "C" team and to be honest, management seem to have given up the pretense too.
My kid's a trapped player on that "C" team and as a side note, I'm happy with that: the NL and other RL have massive rosters with a lot of players sitting each week, whereas we keep it lean and mean. Based on what I'm hearing, our kids (and parents) are much the happier right now.
But, come the High School break, the plan is to combine the remaining middle schoolers (e.g. the trapped players) across all 3 teams into a single team and play some scrimmages and tournaments. What's interesting though is that the initial word is that we'll only have 10 or 11 players and that maybe 8 or 9 of those are from our "C" team.
In other words, the NL and top RL team only have 2 or 3 trapped players across both their massive squads, whereas the "C" team is around 50% middle school. It's anecdotal of course, but seems to highlight the Relative Age Effect.
They maintained it like that for 30+ years.
The whole world doesn’t use it..though many do (most of the international teams we play are from Mexico, or England - that don’t use BY.) In Spain they group kids by 2 years..so one year you are the oldest..the next year younger..kids often move between A, B, and C teams. They also play 7v7 until u14…which likely helps with the RAE as the game is more based on technical skills than athleticism. So if we are copying the international community…than go ahead and copy Spain…but using BY in and of itself does nothing to help.
The age effect has been well documented across numerous studies and numerous sports. The only thing shifting the age line will do is reward some players closer to the start of the new age line and punish players on the other side of the new age line. Given the size of the relative age effect (it's pretty massive from what everyone who has studied it has looked at), if we really cared about "fairness" in youth sports the age brackets would be 6 months. But nobody wants that because it would separate friends and classmates ("social" aspect of sports) and it would be hard to administer and administer of a level playing field ("efficiency"...harder to form teams, harder to bracket tournaments and leagues, some people wouldn't want to do it etc). The argument against the trapped players is it has a dramatic effect in 8th grade and senior year on the trapped players. In my kid's case he's had to decline several opportunities to "play up" because he was a trapped player (he would have been, for example, an 8th grader playing with sophomores in high school).
I like 7v7 until u14 that's a good idea.
US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer, AYSO statement on forthcoming U.S. Soccer decision regarding age group formation by school year vs. calendar year
US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer and AYSO members and participants,
In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change age group formation by school year (Aug. 1-July 31) vs. calendar year (Jan. 1-Dec. 31). Since the change was made, we have been reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels.
Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the request of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision. We support these efforts and appreciate their approach to engage Organizational Members, leagues and clubs in collecting feedback. Additionally, US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have solicited and shared additional feedback with one another in an effort to make the most informed and appropriate decision for our sport.
US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have been in constant communication on the topic, recognizing the importance of consistency across the three biggest youth soccer organizations in America. US Youth Soccer’s and US Club Soccer’s leadership teams have met in person multiple times, most recently in September at the US Youth Soccer Grassroots Symposium in Salt Lake City. Additionally, we welcome the involvement of other U.S. Soccer Organizational Members.
We believe that any decisions should be made as a collective with as many youth organizations as possible, and it is our intention to do so.
As chair and vice chair of the U.S. Soccer Technical Development Committee and Youth Representatives on the Board of Directors, Mike Cullina (US Club Soccer CEO) and Louis Mateus (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors member) are directly involved in the conversation and recommendation to U.S. Soccer’s Board of Directors. As chair of the Youth Council and Youth Representative on the Board of Directors, Tina Rincon (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors chair) is also actively engaged.
The next U.S. Soccer Board of Directors meeting is Nov. 22, 2024. We expect this topic to be on the agenda for that meeting and, consequently, a formal and public decision by the end of the calendar year.
As always, thank you for your passion for the sport and commitment to our athletes.
Skip Gilbert
US Youth Soccer
Mike Cullina
US Club Soccer
Doug Ryan
AYSO National President
US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer and AYSO members and participants,
In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change age group formation by school year (Aug. 1-July 31) vs. calendar year (Jan. 1-Dec. 31). Since the change was made, we have been reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels.
Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the request of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision. We support these efforts and appreciate their approach to engage Organizational Members, leagues and clubs in collecting feedback. Additionally, US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have solicited and shared additional feedback with one another in an effort to make the most informed and appropriate decision for our sport.
US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have been in constant communication on the topic, recognizing the importance of consistency across the three biggest youth soccer organizations in America. US Youth Soccer’s and US Club Soccer’s leadership teams have met in person multiple times, most recently in September at the US Youth Soccer Grassroots Symposium in Salt Lake City. Additionally, we welcome the involvement of other U.S. Soccer Organizational Members.
We believe that any decisions should be made as a collective with as many youth organizations as possible, and it is our intention to do so.
As chair and vice chair of the U.S. Soccer Technical Development Committee and Youth Representatives on the Board of Directors, Mike Cullina (US Club Soccer CEO) and Louis Mateus (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors member) are directly involved in the conversation and recommendation to U.S. Soccer’s Board of Directors. As chair of the Youth Council and Youth Representative on the Board of Directors, Tina Rincon (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors chair) is also actively engaged.
The next U.S. Soccer Board of Directors meeting is Nov. 22, 2024. We expect this topic to be on the agenda for that meeting and, consequently, a formal and public decision by the end of the calendar year.
As always, thank you for your passion for the sport and commitment to our athletes.
Skip Gilbert
US Youth Soccer
Mike Cullina
US Club Soccer
Doug Ryan
AYSO National President
whatithink
GOLD
The other thing to consider, assuming this goes through, is that, for those that want/say teams will stay together, there is a ripple effect with the new team groupings, i.e. the oldest current age group is U18/19 because BY doesn't work at the oldest level. There will now be U18 & U19 teams. So there will be a ripple downwards, i.e. U19 picks Aug-Dec from prior U18/19 team PLUS Jan-Jul from prior U17 team. That means the prior team is now broken up and will replicate and so on and so forth.
This means...
USSSA = GA, DPL, EA
MLS = MLSN
Other than DPL (who actually controls GA) and made a statement that they'd follow US Soccer's decision. The only big group that hasn't made a statement is MLSN
Love it or hate it either the largest majority of leagues will switch to SY or all leagues will switch to SY.
I'm sure US Soccer is pissed about being forced to backtrack on its decisions. Which will just come out in different ways in the future.
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
Statistically, they are bigger, faster, and smarter - assuming that as a child grows, all three qualities are moving in the right direction. It would probably be silly to assume that there was no difference. Of course individuals will vary, but that doesn't negate the law of averages. The key question is if those differences are significant enough to make a difference, or instead close enough to not matter a whole lot.
Right now groupings are done by year. It would be pretty silly to group teams three groups like this (Ages 6-10, 11-15, 16-20), as the differences within each group make it silly for a 6 year old to play with a 10 year old, or an 11 year old to play with a 15 year old. Similarly, it be pretty silly to have teams like this (Jan2011, Feb2011, Mar2011, Apr2011, May2011, etc) because there aren't enough kids available to have teams for every birth month. So most leagues landed on a year (though many rec clubs go by 2 years).
Here are some counterpoints to the reasons listed:
It works - Does it? It's been discussed in length the impact BY has on participation at the young ages, and on trapped players. One can choose to ignore or care because it doesn't apply to you, but it's happening. We can argue to what degree, but it's difficult to argue BY doesn't have a negative impact on participation.
Most of the world uses - Could have some merit but how? In what way does it help for the US to be aligned with most of the world? Is it just for national teams? If so, is that reason enough? The US soccer landscape is different than most of the world. For most of the world, soccer is #1. And often by a large margin. So BY vs SY may not have a whole lot of impact on participation rates. In the US, where soccer is clearly not #1, soccer as a sport is fighting for the hearts and minds of kids and parents when it comes to participation. So from a big picture perspective, wouldn't it be beneficial for soccer if the US does what's best for participation rate in the US?
Homeschoolers or Redshirts - This only really applies if the new system is based on grade level and not SY derived dates. Since most believe it will be the latter, this point is moot.
I think the biggest reason against the change is the disruption to the current system. Going from BY to SY will be shake up the ecosystem. Others have already pointed out how teams will be broken up. But what hasn't been discussed is the psychological impact this will have on some of these kids. Think of the Jan-July kids who now have to compete with older kids. Could this be a positive? Sure. But could the turmoil push some kids to quit. I wouldn't be surprised. So it begs the question - disrupt the system for the greater good in the long-run at the expense of causing immediate pain for some in the short-run?
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
So maybe the assumption that ECNL was in the back room planning/leading all of this can stop being repeatedly regurgitated on this board by those with an anti-ECNL agenda. Of course they are in support of it - it sounds like most others may be as well.
PurpleCrush
BRONZE
You could but it may not be in the best interests of some teams to do so or if clubs will even allow it for mixed teams.
Example: A boys 2010/2011 team will need to look at the roster as a whole. There will be 2010's that are on/after August 1st but then others that are before that date. If majority is before the date, then you look at the older division which would include 2009's.
Are clubs going to allow 2011's to play up in that division? Have a hard time believing that. Those are going to be the teams that are impacted the most. A team full of 2010's will likely choose to play together even if has some playing "up".
Is it such a bad thing to wait for an official statement?
If anything it forces leagues communicate with parents professionally instead of leaking rumors.
Noticer
SILVER
"Excessively Pro GAL" is not necessarily anti-ECNL, but in the case of the user you're referring to, I think your wording is fine
whatithink
GOLD
Teams don't choose though, clubs do. IMV, the clubs will accept the decision and rip the band-aid off immediately. They will not want this to be an issue for years by keeping teams together. That's what they did last time from what I saw and there were some grumbles but then everyone moved on as it wasn't going to change.
RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
If that's all you think you were doing, then of course there isn't a problem with it.
Attacking the credibility of other posters, pretending that something wasn't obvious when it was, and accusing others of starting rumors and causing FOMO when you were doing the same throughout - those are things people might have a problem with.