Get ready folks

CAZZZ said:
Two questions remain:

1. What will MLSN and GA do? I assume they will stay in BY as no news from them.
2. Will ECNL have any transit plan for 25/26?

Hope we can get those answers soon.
Click to expand...
ECNL should start the switch 25/26 for clubs to retain players and figure out internally how much damage will be done. Its better to jump on the fall out now then at tryouts for the 26/27 season. At least the smaller clubs can still have a fighting chance. For most teams your better players are already the October - January birthdays (January due to these kids are typically months and sometimes close to a year older then most of the team). BY was the wrong move for US Soccer without having any type of academy system in place. If you want to follow Europe, great - have a system in place for both boys and girls but this wasn't the case. Once again 10 years pass and the US falls deeper in a hole for player development.
 
I would be very surprised if GA stays Birth Year. In the battle for trying to establish itself as a viable rival to ECNL for the best players, staying Birth Year would severely damage GA teams trying to retain or recruit any top level player with a Sept-Dec birthday.

My daughter is a Sept birthday and we would absolutely move from a GA club to an ECNL club if she was able to drop down an age group if the opportunity was right.
 
DeaconSoccer12 said:
I would be very surprised if GA stays Birth Year. In the battle for trying to establish itself as a viable rival to ECNL for the best players, staying Birth Year would severely damage GA teams trying to retain or recruit any top level player with a Sept-Dec birthday.

My daughter is a Sept birthday and we would absolutely move from a GA club to an ECNL club if she was able to drop down an age group if the opportunity was right.
Click to expand...
The arguments for not changing are 1. US Soccer is moving in the background to establish a woman's academy system. Reason why is Europe using an academy system has caught up to the USWNT, if not yet passed them. The financials aren't there so it's been slow going, but they know it's going to eventually come to that. Such an academy system would, like the boys, be on a calendar year system for ease of European competition (the biggest draw is trying to persuade European academies to come play over here). GA hopes to be the feeder system to that academy much like MLS Next. So to preserve that position the argument would be don't change. 2. The boys academies for the reasons stated are unlikely to change. So the question then becomes do they let the regular MLSN clubs change, and if so do they allow the down stream ones to change (MLS2). If MLSN doesn't change its unlike MLS2 will be allowed to change because the entire point there is not college recruitment but to give the MLSN bench warmers and nondressers a place to play with some more flexibility. 3. If the boys MLS side doesn't change you'll have a bunch of clubs split with girl teams and boy teams on different rotations.
 
Grace T. said:
The arguments for not changing are 1. US Soccer is moving in the background to establish a woman's academy system. Reason why is Europe using an academy system has caught up to the USWNT, if not yet passed them. The financials aren't there so it's been slow going, but they know it's going to eventually come to that. Such an academy system would, like the boys, be on a calendar year system for ease of European competition (the biggest draw is trying to persuade European academies to come play over here). GA hopes to be the feeder system to that academy much like MLS Next. So to preserve that position the argument would be don't change. 2. The boys academies for the reasons stated are unlikely to change. So the question then becomes do they let the regular MLSN clubs change, and if so do they allow the down stream ones to change (MLS2). If MLSN doesn't change its unlike MLS2 will be allowed to change because the entire point there is not college recruitment but to give the MLSN bench warmers and nondressers a place to play with some more flexibility. 3. If the boys MLS side doesn't change you'll have a bunch of clubs split with girl teams and boy teams on different rotations.
Click to expand...
As long as MLSN (either 1 or 2) has biobanding I don't think BY or SY really matter.

What does matter is that MLSN maintains a culture that values abilities over a "this is our team + it cant change" mantra. Meaning players can and will be switched or moved up/down out at any time.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
As long as MLSN (either 1 or 2) has biobanding I don't think BY or SY really matter.

What does matter is that MLSN maintains a culture that values abilities over a "this is our team + it cant change" mantra. Meaning players can and will be switched or moved up/down out at any time.
Click to expand...
This is why MLSN is the superior platform to all others. The comments from angry Karen/Kevins flying on IG are AMAZING.
 
The reality is, most MLSN clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. It's a rule that isn't monitored and hence clubs abuse it. A majority of the clubs use it for 2 reasons:
1) Bio band down really good players to help weaker teams win games
2) Park players who are struggling at their own age group simply to not being good enough...and aren't struggling because of late development. This helps the club to avoid having the tough conversation about a player having to move down to a team 2, and ensure the clubs keeps the player fees as the parents will still see their kid on a MLS team.
 
D8958 said:
A blast from the past.
Apparently all the assumptions they made and the reasons they gave in this press release were completely incorrect.
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/five-things-to-know-about-birth-year-registration

Now more than ever it is true,
US Soccer, you have no idea why you do what you do.


Five Things to Know About Birth Year Registration​

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2017, the way in which youth players in the United States register for youth soccer teams will be based on their year of birth. This new standard will help create clarity, improve understanding about developmental progress and enhance playing environments as a part of the U.S. Soccer Player Development Initiatives (PDI’s). Here are five things you should know about the new registration rules to age groups.

Beginning on Aug. 1, 2017, the way in which youth players in the United States register for youth soccer teams will be based on their year of birth. This new standard will help create clarity, improve understanding about developmental progress and enhance playing environments as a part of the U.S. Soccer Player Development Initiatives (PDI’s).
Here are five things you should know about the new registration rules to age groups.

What is birth year registration?
Currently, youth players in the United States sign up for same-age group clubs and teams based on the traditional calendar of a school year, from August to July. Under this system of registration, a player born before August 1, 2007 would have played in a U-11 age group (players age 11 and under) for the upcoming 2017-2018 season, while a player born after August 1, 2007 would have played in a U-10 age group.
Beginning August 1, for the upcoming 2017-2018 season, any player born from January 1 to December 31 of 2007 will play in a U-11 age group. Birth year will be the only determinant for youth team registration. There will no longer be a mid-year cut-off to decide in which age group a player will play.
The United States and Canada have been the only FIFA member nations to use this model.
This PDI brings youth soccer in the United States in line with the rest of the world by using a normal calendar year of each player’s birth year to determine their age group.

Why are the youth soccer registration standards changing?
The change in age group registration aims to support player development, and goes hand-in-hand with the new standards for small-sided games. Using birth year registration ensures that players are training and playing in the proper age group, each with their own developmental needs.
The new standard also strives to lessen relative age effect (RAE). RAE is a selection bias towards players born earlier in the calendar year. Players born in early months are naturally older and more mature, but not necessarily better players. While the change to birth year registration won’t completely solve the problem, it will make it easier to identify and understand.
How to determine your age group
Birth year registration is determined by the year a soccer season ends. For seasons that span from fall to spring or summer overlapping across two calendar years, players will register based on their age during the second year of the season. To simplify, an age group can be determined by subtracting the birth year from the year the season ends.
Year Season Ends – Birth Year = Age Group
2017 to 2018 – 2003 = U-15

Short-Term Changes, Long-Term Benefits
The current iteration of some teams will change with the implementation of the birth year registration rule, but the changes will affect different clubs depending on how they organize their teams. Some clubs may use mixed age group teams such as a combined U-11/U-12 team. For younger age groups, where RAE may be more prominent, more than one team could be created for each birth year. Players also still have the option to play up in older age groups, if they need stronger competition. In the short term, team compositions may change, but in the long term this shift prioritizes individual player development over team success, the driving purpose behind PDIs.

Easier to Understand and Creates Awareness
Shifting to a birth year registration system makes it easier to understand what age group a youth player belongs in. Previously, two players born in the same year could be in different age groups. Now, every player born in the same calendar year will play in the same age group. This makes it easier for parents to figure out where their child should be playing and for both coaches and parents to become more aware of how players develop based on age and how individual needs may vary.
This change also aligns the U.S. youth soccer calendar with the rest of the world. The United States was one of only two countries that used a school year calendar to determine age group. Now, the United States joins nearly every other FIFA federation. U.S. youth players will now develop and train in the same age group environment as leading soccer nations worldwide.
Click to expand...
US Soccer couldn't work its way out of a wet paper bag.
 
soccerdad247 said:
The reality is, most MLSN clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. It's a rule that isn't monitored and hence clubs abuse it. A majority of the clubs use it for 2 reasons:
1) Bio band down really good players to help weaker teams win games
2) Park players who are struggling at their own age group simply to not being good enough...and aren't struggling because of late development. This helps the club to avoid having the tough conversation about a player having to move down to a team 2, and ensure the clubs keeps the player fees as the parents will still see their kid on a MLS team.
Click to expand...
Bio Banding is a PC euphemism for playing down.
 
soccerdad247 said:
The reality is, most MLSN clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. It's a rule that isn't monitored and hence clubs abuse it. A majority of the clubs use it for 2 reasons:
1) Bio band down really good players to help weaker teams win games
2) Park players who are struggling at their own age group simply to not being good enough...and aren't struggling because of late development. This helps the club to avoid having the tough conversation about a player having to move down to a team 2, and ensure the clubs keeps the player fees as the parents will still see their kid on a MLS team.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. For that reason a lot of the clubs are reluctant to bring in bio banded players that might benefit from the system but burn one of these slots (in order to keep them in reserve for bio banded players they may need for strategic reasons). It's harder to go in incoming and say "I want to come in as a biobanded player downward" than it is to just move a player down. Further, the regular MLSN teams operate still as little fiefdoms for their coaches to select and control (rather than have selection and placement done but an overall MSLN placement director who will tell the coach what players are assigned to their team). While some have changed (I heard that either Surf or Albion recently change this...can't remember which), it's still hard to properly place players unless you have a unified placement director and take that say so away from the coaches.

I also see plenty of the mantra "this is our team"-- just a small example from the GK world....most MLSN teams carry 2 and sometimes 3 keepers...the starter is usually the starter and won't survive very long unless the starter is superior but there are a lot of alternate and 3rds out there being carried because "this is our team" and they are reluctant to have the conversation or bring someone in that's better. Again this is a function that for regular MLSN teams coaches still largely control selection. That's not the case in the academies which have multiple touchpoints for selection, not just the coach of the applicable team. Indeed, this is one of the rationales for MLS2, to allow coaches to more freely and temporarily move down players without dropping them
 
soccerdad247 said:
The reality is, most MLSN clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. It's a rule that isn't monitored and hence clubs abuse it. A majority of the clubs use it for 2 reasons:
1) Bio band down really good players to help weaker teams win games
2) Park players who are struggling at their own age group simply to not being good enough...and aren't struggling because of late development. This helps the club to avoid having the tough conversation about a player having to move down to a team 2, and ensure the clubs keeps the player fees as the parents will still see their kid on a MLS team.
Click to expand...
I agree that many clubs aren't using biobanding the way it was intended. However it's effect is working as intended.

MLSN players and coaches don't look at teams as age alone defined entities that can't change until the end of the season. This puts an emphasis on player ability instead of parent/player/coach connections. Although it's obvious and annoying when a competitor is playing players down for wins. It's also a competitive advantage for the of age players to learn from older players. Two sides of every coin.
 
With ECNL’s heavy presence in CA / high pool of talented kids playing given size of state and ability to play year round outdoors, and given the high percentage of CA kids that don’t start Kindergarten right upon turning 5 (even though they are allowed (but not required) to do so by 9/1 public school cutoff), does anyone else find it surprising that ECNL would opt to exclude the older August kids from playing with their enrolled grade? Losing all those August kids from the sport is a losing proposition for ECNL.
 
"Given the high propensity of California parents to try and game the system when enrolling their kid, isn't it weird that they might not be able to continue to do so in any age/grade - related contexts until they get their doctorate?"
 
SoccerSF said:
With ECNL’s heavy presence in CA / high pool of talented kids playing given size of state and ability to play year round outdoors, and given the high percentage of CA kids that don’t start Kindergarten right upon turning 5 (even though they are allowed (but not required) to do so by 9/1 public school cutoff), does anyone else find it surprising that ECNL would opt to exclude the older August kids from playing with their enrolled grade? Losing all those August kids from the sport is a losing proposition for ECNL.
Click to expand...

You are overly worried. Good Aug. players who can go to D1 have no issues playing up. They are the valuable players ECNL is looking for. The Aug. parents who complain most likely have a bubble player that will be impacted after the change.
 
Hey. Someone just told me that one of the considerations for picking the 9/1 date is that it is the date that England (which is one of the few countries not on BY...as the founders of futbol they are apparently given some grandfathered consideration) uses, and the reason this date was picked was to align with England. The hope is the MLS academies, by aligning the same date as England, might be persuaded to switch over if they won't get dinged by FIFA in international tournaments (which was one of the considerations for the original switch to by). That's why the Augusts were thrown (admittedly) over. Can anyone confirm if there's any truth to any of this?
 
I know MLS people think players Born in September have the most appeal because the pool of buyers is on a 9/1 system.
 
BBB said:
I know MLS people think players Born in September have the most appeal because the pool of buyers is on a 9/1 system.
Click to expand...
That could be the impetus for a complete change, the US wants and needs to sell players to the premier league that come back and play on the NT's.
 
I disagree. They have a ton of time to figure out the best course of action for themselves, with no need to make a firm statement right now. I bet GA will announce a similar switch 6+ months from now. MLS N (and MLS2) are still 50/50, with again, no need to rush. Both of them can take into account the most recent trajectory of GA and MLS2, and figure out whether the age switch will be a positive or negative change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top