Age pure??

Plain and simple, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT!!!!

If the players are the point of all this and THEY ARE, then the governing body has found a way to destroy or harm the teams of thousands of players.

It needs to be implemented gradually. Grandfather existing teams. Destroying or even harming any teams makes absolutely no sense. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RUSH?

Have yet to see a compelling argument as to why the move to age pure. All USSF says is "to be like everyone else."

Regional and National team participation has always been age pure. That never stopped the small percentage of kids that want to take that path.

For the other 99%, if you asked the PLAYERS I'm sure they'd say they want to play with their classmates.

Zizou wrote:How is this going to work in 2018,2019 when half these teams only graduate half their players will the younger ones be left with no team their senior year?

From another board, the answer is...
Players in that situation will play for the next oldest team for their senior year. For example, the first group that will be affected are the 98/99 teams in the 2016-17 season. The oldest teams that season will be 1999 birth years. The 98's (born Aug - Dec 98) that are still in high school will be allowed to play with the 1999 teams for their senior year. This will repeat every year. For example, the fall 99'ers will play with the 2000 teams during their senior season.

I knew that would be the solution, but then she would be back playing for her original team she had to leave for two seasons and then return for her senior year. I can just see some pissed off parents seeing a potential player coming in their senior year and take away playing time. Should be fun!

So, after possibly playing with a group of players for years, they will have to change teams if they want to play their senior year?  The group of players remaining will have to split up for their senior year?  And if they are looking to play in college, and are still looking or being scouted in the fall of their senior year, they will go to a new team, new system, then look to be scouted?

OLJW wrote:Plain and simple, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT!!!!  

If the players are the point of all this and THEY ARE, then the governing body has found a way to destroy or harm the teams of thousands of players.

It needs to be implemented gradually. Grandfather existing teams. Destroying or even harming any teams makes absolutely no sense. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RUSH?

Somebody in California made the point that shaking up teams may be "feature" rather than a "flaw" in the new system from a USSF perspective. All this focus on teams, all this handwringing over how it affects a team and their ability to compete. Very little focus on how it might help develop individuals or open doors to kids who were previously closed out.
And that is what USSF wants to create - world class individuals and less focus on winning and team building. Not sure i fully believe this helps that ideal, though.

OLJW wrote:Plain and simple, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT!!!!  

If the players are the point of all this and THEY ARE, then the governing body has found a way to destroy or harm the teams of thousands of players.

It needs to be implemented gradually. Grandfather existing teams. Destroying or even harming any teams makes absolutely no sense. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RUSH?

I am not sure it has a big an impact as you make it out to be.  Players can play up, if they want to stay on the same team and in a couple years it will be done. There is no point to drag it out over several years.

SWGSB 52 wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

Sho'nuff wrote:If it's 4v4 through U8, I would think indoor and futsal would get a boost in registration.  

Good luck finding enough coaches in early ages. Most kids start in rec and associations already have a hard time in 7v7 getting coaches.... Now you will double the number of teams... Double the coaches, commissioner work etc... Not sure how well thought out this has been.

Not everyone is playing soccer to make world cup. Building the entire system for this is ridiculous.

4v4 to U8 is great and there are plenty of parent coaches that can run these teams. No Club coaches needed at that level. Your DD is not going to miss out because the team didn't have a "A" or "B" license coach.

Where did I say anything about club? I said rec... Most rec teams at young ages are parent coaches. I trust you haven't spent much time commissioning rec leagues as parents are not lining up to coach theses teams as you think. Always begging parents to step up to coach...

Shelby427 wrote:

SWGSB 52 wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

Sho'nuff wrote:If it's 4v4 through U8, I would think indoor and futsal would get a boost in registration.  

Good luck finding enough coaches in early ages. Most kids start in rec and associations already have a hard time in 7v7 getting coaches.... Now you will double the number of teams... Double the coaches, commissioner work etc... Not sure how well thought out this has been.

Not everyone is playing soccer to make world cup. Building the entire system for this is ridiculous.

4v4 to U8 is great and there are plenty of parent coaches that can run these teams. No Club coaches needed at that level. Your DD is not going to miss out because the team didn't have a "A" or "B" license coach.

Where did I say anything about club? I said rec... Most rec teams at young ages are parent coaches. I trust you haven't spent much time commissioning rec leagues as parents are not lining up to coach theses teams as you think. Always begging parents to step up to coach...

My suggestion for U5-U8 is to keep 10 girl teams (one coach, one assistant) to practice and then for games play two simultaneous 3v3 or 4v4 games against another 10 girl team on adjacent fields. Make an "A" player field and a "B" player field (or aggressive and less-aggressive). Some girls who are tweeners sub in on both. No need for more coaches. No need for refs. Good for development (certainly much better than 7v7) as girls get more touches against more similarly skilled opponents.

timmyh wrote:

OLJW wrote:Plain and simple, NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT!!!!  

If the players are the point of all this and THEY ARE, then the governing body has found a way to destroy or harm the teams of thousands of players.

It needs to be implemented gradually. Grandfather existing teams. Destroying or even harming any teams makes absolutely no sense. WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RUSH?

Somebody in California made the point that shaking up teams may be "feature" rather than a "flaw" in the new system from a USSF perspective. All this focus on teams, all this handwringing over how it affects a team and their ability to compete. Very little focus on how it might help develop individuals or open doors to kids who were previously closed out.
And that is what USSF wants to create - world class individuals and less focus on winning and team building.  Not sure i fully believe this helps that ideal, though.

Nailed it... problem is once the dust settles it's back to the norm... team has to win or the parents leave, parents leave the coach/club doesn't get paid... beating a dead horse on that one...

This is where the Yedlin issue could ever so greatly flip the whole system on its head....

Just imagine a system of true focus on talent development because the clubs stand to collect even more if the kid pans out to be a pro and transfer fees are involved... but wait that really only applies to the men's game.

Scratch all that, carry on.

Which rec league are you referring to? Now that we choose any rec league that we want, I want to stay away from that one.

Shelby427 wrote:

SWGSB 52 wrote:

Shelby427 wrote:

Sho'nuff wrote:If it's 4v4 through U8, I would think indoor and futsal would get a boost in registration.  

Good luck finding enough coaches in early ages. Most kids start in rec and associations already have a hard time in 7v7 getting coaches.... Now you will double the number of teams... Double the coaches, commissioner work etc... Not sure how well thought out this has been.

Not everyone is playing soccer to make world cup. Building the entire system for this is ridiculous.

4v4 to U8 is great and there are plenty of parent coaches that can run these teams. No Club coaches needed at that level. Your DD is not going to miss out because the team didn't have a "A" or "B" license coach.

Where did I say anything about club? I said rec... Most rec teams at young ages are parent coaches. I trust you haven't spent much time commissioning rec leagues as parents are not lining up to coach theses teams as you think. Always begging parents to step up to coach...

Now how important is it that you have been playing up and playing ODP pure age?

I don't understand the necessity for the change, and no one has been able to give me any kind of tangible argument for why birth year vs school year age limit provides any kind of developmental benefit. All it does is switch which birth months will have the advantage during the pre-teen and teenage years.

Now, with that said, there are already select sports in NTX that go by birth year, and not school year, and (GASP!) even split their divisions on 2 year cycles vs. a single year cycle. The girls all seem to do just fine in those sports.

The first couple of years of the transition will be a bit of a headache, but the world won't come to an end because of this.

Breaks down like this..

Rest of world
1. Calendar year based
A. Relative age effect benefits the Jan to say May/June kids.

2. US is school year based.
A. Relative age effect benefits the Aug to say Dec/January kids the most.

So US Soccer calls in the Youth National teams and now you have a group of Calendar year kids...

Our Jan to May kids are not as developed as the rest of the world's Jan to May kids... why... because the clubs are focused on finding the biggest, fastest, strongest Aug to Dec kids.

Our Aug to Dec kids of the same year are physically and mentally behind their Jan to may peers.

So US soccer has two options. Get THE REST OF THE WORLD to change so our Aug to December parents aren't upset or... make us change to what the world is doing.

No offense intended to any of you Aug to Dec parents.

LaLiga06 wrote:Breaks down like this..

Rest of world
1. Calendar year based
    A. Relative age effect benefits the Jan to say May/June kids.

2. US is school year based.
     A. Relative age effect benefits the Aug to say Dec/January kids the most.

So US Soccer calls in the Youth National teams and now you have a group of Calendar year kids...

Our Jan to May kids are not as developed as the rest of the world's Jan to May kids... why... because the clubs are focused on finding the biggest, fastest, strongest Aug to Dec kids.  

Our Aug to Dec kids of the same year are physically and mentally behind their Jan to may peers.

So US soccer has two options. Get THE REST OF THE WORLD to change so our Aug to December parents aren't upset or... make us change to what the world is doing.  

No offense intended to any of you Aug to Dec parents.  

O.K., so based on your argument, our Aug-Dec kids should be developed MORE than the Aug-Dec kids from the other countries, because they are getting all of the coaching focus, right?

Or, what about the added development that the Jan-July kids get because they end up playing up against the more physically developed Aug-Dec kids from the older birth year, instead of the physically lacking Aug-Dec kids from their own birth year?

Of, course, not to mention that a large number of the kids that are in that <<1% that would even get consideration for a Youth National Team, have probably already been playing up in age group for years before they get to the point of being considered for National Team.  Not to mention that ODP is age pure starting at U11.

...and if there is such a huge overall difference in development as a result of the US being school year, then shouldn't the rosters of the Sr. National Teams reflect that cumulative development advantage and be dominated by Aug-Dec birth dates, since you claim those are the birth months where all of the coaches are focusing their efforts in recruiting and developing kids?

Let's see if the current breakdown of the birth months from the USMNT and USWNT back that up...

USMNT Gold Cup Roster:  Jan-July Birthdate = 13, Aug-Dec Birthdate = 10
USWNT World Cup Roster:  Jan-July Birthdate = 17, Aug-Dec Birthdate = 6

Sorry, not buying ANY argument related to development over this.  All it does is shift which birth months have the physical advantage until the kids hit 16-18 yrs old, at which time the physical AND cumulative developmental differences all balance out.

Your MNT is riddled with players groomed mostly where... not here.

Look at rosters of pro clubs and National teams of the rest of the world.

I'm not saying I am arguing for it, heck my kid may very well be playing up when this happens, I prefer it, I am stating what their reasoning is for it.

No matter who's message it is, I'm calling BS on the premise that making such a change will have any net positive or negative long-term impact on player development in the U.S.

Stop the BS sales pitch and simply say it for what it is, the U.S. wants to be the same as the rest of the world, and just leave it at that.

That is exactly why and the stated reason.

Great showing today from the Nats wasn't it...

US Women won the World Cup, so let's only change to age pure for the boys and leave the girls alone.

USWNT making it to semis won't happen in my life time. I am 39. I can bet my life on it.

coachdom23 wrote:US Women won the World Cup, so let's only change to age pure for the boys and leave the girls alone.

"Usmnt"

!!

Lot healthier than you.

BFC wrote:!!

bwgophers wrote:I don't understand the necessity for the change, and no one has been able to give me any kind of tangible argument for why birth year vs school year age limit provides any kind of developmental benefit.  All it does is switch which birth months will have the advantage during the pre-teen and teenage years.

Now, with that said, there are already select sports in NTX that go by birth year, and not school year, and (GASP!) even split their divisions on 2 year cycles vs. a single year cycle.  The girls all seem to do just fine in those sports.

The first couple of years of the transition will be a bit of a headache, but the world won't come to an end because of this.

So does this mean all the late birth dates essentially lose a year of soccer? If you're a late date 04 you'll magically become an 03?

db10 wrote:

bwgophers wrote:I don't understand the necessity for the change, and no one has been able to give me any kind of tangible argument for why birth year vs school year age limit provides any kind of developmental benefit.  All it does is switch which birth months will have the advantage during the pre-teen and teenage years.

Now, with that said, there are already select sports in NTX that go by birth year, and not school year, and (GASP!) even split their divisions on 2 year cycles vs. a single year cycle.  The girls all seem to do just fine in those sports.

The first couple of years of the transition will be a bit of a headache, but the world won't come to an end because of this.

So does this mean all the late birth dates essentially lose a year of soccer? If you're a late date 04 you'll magically become an 03?

Maybe it means my spring academy aged dd gets 'held back' and cant go 'select' when she otherwise would have! The outrage!!

Unless a fall dd sits out, they dont lose anything just may have different U# attached to her.