Get ready folks

Derek1800 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. The delay for a year is really short sighted. You’re going to have new teams formed and other teams attempt to recruit to improve their team, all with the understanding these teams may have a shelf life of one year?

You really might as well rip the band aid off and just figure it out now instead of being in this position next year. Delaying something that will
100% happen regardless is really dumb.
 
PurpleCrush said:
I agree. The delay for a year is really short sighted. You’re going to have new teams formed and other teams attempt to recruit to improve their team, all with the understanding these teams may have a shelf life of one year?

You really might as well rip the band aid off and just figure it out now instead of being in this position next year. Delaying something that will
100% happen regardless is really dumb.
Click to expand...
Do you know why they want to delay a year? I cannot make any sense of it.
 
KingMI said:
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.
Click to expand...

I feel ashamed to win a game with a biobanding player in it while the other team does not have one. I think we are gaming the system. If ECNL Q1/Q2 parents are mad about the SY change because their kids will face 4/5 months older players, the MLSN player needs to deal with 18 months older biobanding player to take his position.
 
CAZZZ said:
I feel ashamed to win a game with a biobanding player in it while the other team does not have one. I think we are gaming the system. If ECNL Q1/Q2 parents are mad about the SY change because their kids will face 4/5 months older players, the MLSN player needs to deal with 18 months older biobanding player to take his position.
Click to expand...
You have no clue, MLSN is about playing up.

They could care less about bio banding.
 
Code said:
The change elimnates the Trapped Player scenario; that is why they are rolling the ignorant DA era rule back to pre DA rules.
Click to expand...
There's 4 scenarios that aren't addressed if the cutoff is Aug 1st.

1. A school or district who's cutoff is earlier than Aug 1st. There's several that are July 1st as an example. In this case a July birthday player would be forced to play up a grade in school.

2. A school or districts cutoff date is Sept 1st. In this case an August birthday would be a year up in school but able to play a year down in club soccer. Most players in this situation would choose to play up with their grade in school in club.

3. Deliberately held back players. Parents hold their kid back for a variety of reasons. They then want everyone else to accommodate their decision allowing a kid that's a year older than their classmates to participate in things like sports.

4. Homeschoolers. These parents like to choose whichever group and level their kid associates with.

The ones that cause issues are #3 and #4. Both groups aren't accustomed to following rules. #3 is difficult because many private schools encourage parents to hold back their kids. Parents with money and power don't like not being able to participate in club soccer the way they want to.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
There's 4 scenarios that aren't addressed if the cutoff is Aug 1st.

1. A school or district who's cutoff is earlier than Aug 1st. There's several that are July 1st as an example. In this case a July birthday player would be forced to play up a grade in school.

2. A school or districts cutoff date is Sept 1st. In this case an August birthday would be a year up in school but able to play a year down in club soccer. Most players in this situation would choose to play up with their grade in school in club.

3. Deliberately held back players. Parents hold their kid back for a variety of reasons. They then want everyone else to accommodate their decision allowing a kid that's a year older than their classmates to participate in things like sports.

4. Homeschoolers. These parents like to choose whichever group and level their kid associates with.

The ones that cause issues are #3 and #4. Both groups aren't accustomed to following rules. #3 is difficult because many private schools encourage parents to hold back their kids. Parents with money and power don't like not being able to participate in club soccer the way they want to.
Click to expand...
There's one scenario, its a date range and your kid plays in the appropriate one based on their birth date.
 
whatithink said:
There's one scenario, its a date range and your kid plays in the appropriate one based on their birth date.
Click to expand...
I agree, but with all the BY to SY talk the crazies are coming out to try and push their agendas.

As an example CAZZZ brought up biobanding so they can try to justify letting players play down.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I agree, but with all the BY to SY talk the crazies are coming out to try and push their agendas.

As an example CAZZZ brought up biobanding so they can try to justify letting players play down.
Click to expand...
Bio banding exists now, as do the crazies. I don't doubt that many people are trying to game the system and many will try if/when they change the date ranges. That said, those "many" are likely a very tiny %, so meh!
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I agree, but with all the BY to SY talk the crazies are coming out to try and push their agendas.

As an example CAZZZ brought up biobanding so they can try to justify letting players play down.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, just saw this ad....here come the crazies.....12th grader up to age 20 for a soccer college ID camp? Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
1731359868187.png
 
whatithink said:
Bio banding exists now, as do the crazies. I don't doubt that many people are trying to game the system and many will try if/when they change the date ranges. That said, those "many" are likely a very tiny %, so meh!
Click to expand...

Biobanding is a gray area that challenges the fairness of the game. As I said before, if ECNL Q1/Q2 parents are so mad because Q3/Q4 players will join next season, and they are only 5/6 months older, think about an MLSN biobanding player that can be 18 months older than your kid. Apply biobanding needs comprehensive considerations. Winning a game at any cost is not a good reason to utilize biobanding.
 
CAZZZ said:
Biobanding is a gray area that challenges the fairness of the game. As I said before, if ECNL Q1/Q2 parents are so mad because Q3/Q4 players will join next season, and they are only 5/6 months older, think about an MLSN biobanding player that can be 18 months older than your kid. Apply biobanding needs comprehensive considerations. Winning a game at any cost is not a good reason to utilize biobanding.
Click to expand...
I agree. If you have a kid in MLSN who needs to play down to stand out or compete, then that kid probably shouldn't be in MLSN. If you have a kid in MLSN and he isn't playing up, then he's not a baller. Likewise, if all you are about is winning, then MLSN is probably not the right program for you.
 
Honestly this whole thing is f@cking lame. Just leave it alone. But they cant because like I have said all along and I think people are finally catching on (other than parents who can have their kids play down a year) its all for these leagues agendas to make more money. Its has ZERO to do with the kids and US soccer development. ZERO!!!!
 
whatithink said:
I agree. If you have a kid in MLSN who needs to play down to stand out or compete, then that kid probably shouldn't be in MLSN. If you have a kid in MLSN and he isn't playing up, then he's not a baller. Likewise, if all you are about is winning, then MLSN is probably not the right program for you.
Click to expand...
There have been numerous examples of top soccer players in the world who were almost cut given late in CY and under developed compared to peers. This is why biobanding was created and it wasn't here in the US. The logic is sound if your top priority is developing talent over the long run (which it is in europe because your end goal is profiting off talent). In the US a big problem we have is the top priority is always winning at every age which is what you are advocating for.
 
SuperSoccerStar said:
Honestly this whole thing is f@cking lame. Just leave it alone. But they cant because like I have said all along and I think people are finally catching on (other than parents who can have their kids play down a year) its all for these leagues agendas to make more money. Its has ZERO to do with the kids and US soccer development. ZERO!!!!
Click to expand...
It’s no different than most of the decisions made by these governing bodies to be honest.
 
SuperSoccerStar said:
Honestly this whole thing is f@cking lame. Just leave it alone. But they cant because like I have said all along and I think people are finally catching on (other than parents who can have their kids play down a year) its all for these leagues agendas to make more money. Its has ZERO to do with the kids and US soccer development. ZERO!!!!
Click to expand...
How will they make more money? I don't suppose that it will be due to higher numbers playing ... so your point would be to that they shouldn't make a change that (they believe) will lead to higher playing numbers because ... can you fill in the last piece for me please?
 
Derek1800 said:
There have been numerous examples of top soccer players in the world who were almost cut given late in CY and under developed compared to peers. This is why biobanding was created and it wasn't here in the US. The logic is sound if your top priority is developing talent over the long run (which it is in europe because your end goal is profiting off talent). In the US a big problem we have is the top priority is always winning at every age which is what you are advocating for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. At the very highest level it makes sense (Gareth Bale is a good example). You've already made your selections and picked up the most talented players and now you want to develop that talent. For the rest, not so much imv.
 
whatithink said:
How will they make more money? I don't suppose that it will be due to higher numbers playing ... so your point would be to that they shouldn't make a change that (they believe) will lead to higher playing numbers because ... can you fill in the last piece for me please?
Click to expand...
All the public reasons for the potential change seem secondary or peripheral and I don't think US Soccer is being fully transparent (big surprise, i know).

In any case, US Soccer has given everyone the chance to voice their opinion: https://www.ussoccer.com/ecosystem-review/player-registration

I am surprised this hasn't been posted yet or maybe I missed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top