Get ready folks

I guess we can agree to disagree. Nothing fomo for me. I’ve always gotten my kid work in the winter. 15 games is a long time for girls and little women who are built different than boys and get out of shape faster. We can’t see eye to eye here because of the difference in league and gender associated between our experiences.
But that's the thing... nothing says they have to get out of shape. Crosstraining, individual training, fitness opportunities are available. Why can't they train with another team? Why can't they put together a group from their club who isn't playing HS to train? Not every HS-aged player plays in HS.
 
But that's the thing... nothing says they have to get out of shape. Crosstraining, individual training, fitness opportunities are available. Why can't they train with another team? Why can't they put together a group from their club who isn't playing HS to train? Not every HS-aged player plays in HS.
You’re confusing fitness which is something they should be doing year round regardless of season to game experience which is what lacks when girls are playing high school and the rest aren’t.
 
Internal poll for SOCAL came back in favor of 78% to remain on birth year for 25/26 season and SOCAL is being told that its more likely this happens for the 26/27 season.

But we'll see what happens.
I will just say this is absolutely the least logical approach so of course SOCAL would do it. It fits with a bunch of other illogical approaches they take :/

Lets put a bunch of 7, 8, 9 years who are starting club for their first year in a grouping we know will change next year and cause unnecessary disruption for them. All because of stupid early December younger tryouts that cause unnecessary psychological stress on kids who get cut and still have to keep playing with their team in state cup and tournaments. Sad to see.

Either change to SY or stay permanently with GY. This delay a year is completely stupid.
 
I will just say this is absolutely the least logical approach so of course SOCAL would do it. It fits with a bunch of other illogical approaches they take :/

Lets put a bunch of 7, 8, 9 years who are starting club for their first year in a grouping we know will change next year and cause unnecessary disruption for them. All because of stupid early December younger tryouts that cause unnecessary psychological stress on kids who get cut and still have to keep playing with their team in state cup and tournaments. Sad to see.

Either change to SY or stay permanently with GY. This delay a year is completely stupid.
GY is stupid and ridiculous.

SY is annoying but not the end of the world.
 
You’re confusing fitness which is something they should be doing year round regardless of season to game experience which is what lacks when girls are playing high school and the rest aren’t.
No, I'm not. 8th graders and HS kids who aren't playing for their school can use this as an offseason and do a lot of heavier strength/conditioning training that's not appropriate during the season. Nobody has given a good reason why the non-HS playing kids can't train together and why trapped 8th graders can't train with the year below them. There's no reason they can't scrimmage in training to stay sharp.
 
Sure, and that happens now - good youngers can play up. But this flippant and general "players can just play up" attitude is insane because kids don't make that choice. The clubs are in charge and tell kids where they're being offered a space.
Whose attitude are you (mis)quoting?
 
No, I'm not. 8th graders and HS kids who aren't playing for their school can use this as an offseason and do a lot of heavier strength/conditioning training that's not appropriate during the season. Nobody has given a good reason why the non-HS playing kids can't train together and why trapped 8th graders can't train with the year below them. There's no reason they can't scrimmage in training to stay sharp.
and they do
 
No, I'm not. 8th graders and HS kids who aren't playing for their school can use this as an offseason and do a lot of heavier strength/conditioning training that's not appropriate during the season. Nobody has given a good reason why the non-HS playing kids can't train together and why trapped 8th graders can't train with the year below them. There's no reason they can't scrimmage in training to stay sharp.
You’re right but that just doesn’t happen… most coaches at this age are with their high school teams they coach in the winter and the trapped players are an after thought
 
Bio Banding left the door open to make teams better by playing down a 6 foot 2 14 year old to u13 to win games. Most clubs did right by the late developing kids. Some clubs use the Bio bands to make teams more competitive.
No team is playing down a 6 foot 2 14 yo at U13 and saying they are bio-banding. They have to declare the bio-banded player, and there's zero chance an opposing coach signs off on that. TBH, you don't appear to know what bio-banding is, i.e. grouping athletes based on physical growth and maturation (e.g. height and strength), rather than chronological age.

FWIW, I have seen clubs play smaller players (who would qualify physically under bio-banding) down to make teams stronger.
 
Could someone please point out any MLS/ECNL teams that are comprised of kids from one school? The teams from our club are lucky if they have more than 2-3 kids from a single school.
Thats the opposite of what was intended by the comment, i.e. for non "elite" level, it makes sense that they can group together. At the top level, it'll always be a mix.
 
No team is playing down a 6 foot 2 14 yo at U13 and saying they are bio-banding. They have to declare the bio-banded player, and there's zero chance an opposing coach signs off on that. TBH, you don't appear to know what bio-banding is, i.e. grouping athletes based on physical growth and maturation (e.g. height and strength), rather than chronological age.

FWIW, I have seen clubs play smaller players (who would qualify physically under bio-banding) down to make teams stronger.
From my understanding you can play any player down if they are Q4 regardless of size or ability. (Thats the loophole.)
All Q4 kids are not late developers. Some are the top of the food chain. Like I said before most clubs do the right thing for the kids. We all know some do not.
 
From my understanding you can play any player down if they are Q4 regardless of size or ability. (Thats the loophole.)
All Q4 kids are not late developers. Some are the top of the food chain. Like I said before most clubs do the right thing for the kids. We all know some do not.
I've never heard of that and never seen it applied (vs bio-banding), are you talking about every league or just some - any links/citations?
 
I've never heard of that and never seen it applied (vs bio-banding), are you talking about every league or just some - any links/citations?
Some coaches say that's pretty much the rule for bio-banding. Q4 kids have free rein. Since there was not really a player profile to say yes or no for bio-banding. This is the loophole we see exploited.

I know 5'3 mids that will kill teams with soccer IQ & field vision paying down a year in a bio-band situation. Size is a issue at times but not for certain positions.

(If the girls had this option to bio-band it would be good for the game.)
 
Some coaches say that's pretty much the rule for bio-banding. Q4 kids have free rein. Since there was not really a player profile to say yes or no for bio-banding. This is the loophole we see exploited.

I know 5'3 mids that will kill teams with soccer IQ & field vision paying down a year in a bio-band situation. Size is a issue at times but not for certain positions.

(If the girls had this option to bio-band it would be good for the game.)
There are literally bio-banding calculators. Its nothing to do with Q4, although Q4 kids are more likely to be less mature physically, as it can be applied to any kid in an age group for them to play up or down (you do know it goes up also).

I'm taking it from you reply that the assertion "you can play any player down if they are Q4 regardless of size or ability" has no credence.
 
Some coaches say that's pretty much the rule for bio-banding. Q4 kids have free rein. Since there was not really a player profile to say yes or no for bio-banding. This is the loophole we see exploited.

I know 5'3 mids that will kill teams with soccer IQ & field vision paying down a year in a bio-band situation. Size is a issue at times but not for certain positions.

(If the girls had this option to bio-band it would be good for the game.)

Biobanding is so easy to get abused. I think it should only apply to the MLS Academy teams, which those players are worth developing under protection. I believe Albion and Nomads don't do biobanding.

It is laughable that parents get so upset when ECNL changes to SY. Imagine in MLSN, you need to compete with a biobanding kid that is 18 months older.
 
Biobanding is so easy to get abused. I think it should only apply to the MLS Academy teams, which those players are worth developing under protection. I believe Albion and Nomads don't do biobanding.
For most players bio banding is a waste of time. In general MLS Next is looking for players that can play up.
 
For most players bio banding is a waste of time. In general MLS Next is looking for players that can play up.

I agree. That is why I say it is only worthwhile to do biobanking in a truly high-level team like MLS Academy. The player I saw has literally no hope to play in his own age group. If it is an ECNL league, he will be the bench on a RL team. By using 18 months advantage to play down, I will call it cheating.
 
There are literally bio-banding calculators. Its nothing to do with Q4, although Q4 kids are more likely to be less mature physically, as it can be applied to any kid in an age group for them to play up or down (you do know it goes up also).

I'm taking it from you reply that the assertion "you can play any player down if they are Q4 regardless of size or ability" has no credence
You think they use those calculators? We are talking about playing down and abusing the system. I don't make the rules it just is what it is.
What would you do if your whole business evolves around having to be competitive enough to not get relegated? If a club loses MLS Next it's tough on the club. Clubs should be trying to develop players but it's also a business. It's clear you have a different experience so that's fine you see it another way.
 
Back
Top