Jan '06- July'06- go select or stay academy?

Just for the record, NTX's invitation to the discussion yesterday didn't make it to Fever. We would have loved a chance to voice our opinions on the topic. Yes, we are advertising for an AP 06 team because we have two 06 teams and an 07 team (that is almost exclusively AP already) and at 7 v 7 we could form another AP 06 team with just 1 to 2 more.

Our parents would like to have the choice of either going select or repeating their U10 year, and we've sent a request to NTX for them to have another discussion group with small clubs to hear their opinions on the issue before making a decision.

Feverunited06 wrote:Just for the record, NTX's invitation to the discussion yesterday didn't make it to Fever.  We would have loved a chance to voice our opinions on the topic.  Yes, we are advertising for an AP 06 team because we have two 06 teams and an 07 team (that is almost exclusively AP already) and at 7 v 7 we could form another AP 06 team with just 1 to 2 more.  

Our parents would like to have the choice of either going select or repeating their U10 year, and we've sent a request to NTX for them to have another discussion group with small clubs to hear their opinions on the issue before making a decision.  

Well Said!!!! All Clubs should have a voice.

Feverunited06 wrote:Just for the record, NTX's invitation to the discussion yesterday didn't make it to Fever.  We would have loved a chance to voice our opinions on the topic.  Yes, we are advertising for an AP 06 team because we have two 06 teams and an 07 team (that is almost exclusively AP already) and at 7 v 7 we could form another AP 06 team with just 1 to 2 more.  

Our parents would like to have the choice of either going select or repeating their U10 year, and we've sent a request to NTX for them to have another discussion group with small clubs to hear their opinions on the issue before making a decision.  

Unclear why Fever did not make the invitation to the discussion...that's wrong.

Agree everyone should of had input.

However, to be honest, there are VERY few 06' AP that are genuinely good enough to play up. I think the Labor Day tourney proved there are some big gaps between a lot of the teams in the gold division....and of the teams considered at the top, I am not convinced I saw many 06 AP girls that can play successfully against girls 12-18 months older.

Net, just on the low number of 06 AP players really good enough to play up, NTX got it right to not change the rule. Actually maybe NTX should be applauded for making a decision for development and not monetarily based.

I agree. They had to draw the line somewhere. The age groups most affected are 05sand 06s for obvious reasons and will be the weakest due to the transitions they have to go through

Taken straight from the US Soccer initiative on the birth year change:
The birth-year registration initiative will not cause the dissolution of age-group based teams that already play together, but will rather give players the opportunity to ‘play up’ with older age-groups.
But surely LH and NTX knows much more than US Soccer does when it comes to player development.

That begs the question as to why NTX has the rule and why the big clubs made it clear they were in favor of keeping the rule. I know that rule is not in place all over the country, but the rest of the country is not NTX.

How many AP 07s will be showing up for select tryouts if the rule is removed?

And for the record, I am in favor of having a choice.

f4all wrote:I agree. They had to draw the line somewhere. The age groups most affected are 05sand 06s for obvious reasons and will be the weakest due to the transitions they have to go through

I don't think '06s will be weak. As parents look to make moves, the good players will rise to the top. '06 platinum will be strong, the gap between platinum and gold will be even wider though.

'05 D1 will be ridiculously weak, especially if it's 20 teams.

7v7 will almost be like futsal. Bring it on if that's what it has to be. Going to see the skilled ones shine!

I heard clubs plan on pulling 05 (jan thru aug )born players down to play with the 05 ( sep thru dec players) to strengthen 05 age pure teams and fill roster spots.  
There is no guarantee the good 06 born players will stick to play with 06s when they turn u11.    They will have a choice to play with 05s then.  It's a mess.
So I still feel 06s, and 05s will go through severe growing pains  with the age pure changes.  

Sho'nuff wrote:

f4all wrote:I agree. They had to draw the line somewhere. The age groups most affected are 05sand 06s for obvious reasons and will be the weakest due to the transitions they have to go through

I don't think '06s will be weak.  As parents look to make moves, the good players will rise to the top.  '06 platinum will be strong, the gap between platinum and gold will be even wider though.

'05 D1 will be ridiculously weak, especially if it's 20 teams.

This age won't play 7v7. The leagues will do exactly like they did previously and offer a 9v9 league for those preparing for select. They did it for the U10 to play 11v11 and will do the same for the repeat U10 to play 9v9.

Let's just ask em and hopefully it's true. I really do.

Nicole James?

Mr. Primetime?

They read these threads routinely

Have to add, doesn't that put us right back at NTX being NTX?

"I want little johnny at U7 playing big field..so our U7 squad registered for u9 solver A so we can play 7v7 and not 4v4"

Basically defeats the purpose of the only true positive of the mandate.... the small sided soccer.

Triumph - It is a done deal.  If you speak to anyone in NTX they will tell you it is a done deal. Yes the official document states 2017 is mandate but every state association is going calendar year (AP) in 2016 as it was recommended.  Nobody is waiting til 2017.  If you want to wait until the official announcement is made good luck to you Sir.  Not knocking you how you go about your business at all.     

Yes the AGM meeting is on Jan but they are not talking about going calendar year (AP) for 2016 in this meeting.  That has already been decided.  Yesterdays meeting was to discuss RULES CHANGES.  One of the rules we discussed was allowing U10 academy players the option to play up to select.  By not allowing it, you are basically splitting teams up and not giving them the option to stay with current team or if they choose find another team in their own age group.  Why? What is the benefit to the player?  I don't see the logic behind it.  I don't think this is a $$$ thing with the big clubs.  I think this is simply a numbers game in my opinion.  Smaller clubs and especially independent teams wont have the numbers to keep their current players if the team is split between calendar year.   Once these players are forced to look for new teams guess what teams they will be looking at, new independent teams, smaller clubs or
bigger clubs?

I have nothing against big clubs.  You won't find a post from me bashing big clubs.  I think competition makes you do things better.   Every club is different so what works for one might not work for another.  Our kids are fortunate to have a lot of club options.

If the clubs really felt it was best for development not to allow U10 players to play select, then why is there not a rule under US CLUB soccer that prohibits U10 players to play up?    I believe the clubs make the rules with US Club soccer.   I think the logical thing to do is grandfather 06's to give those players a choice to go select or stay academy. If they are not ready for select because of the 1yr commitment, financial obligation, not matured enough for select  they have option to stay U10 one more year.  However, it will give the option to players that are ready.  

I think you will see more players playing up under calendar year than before.  I would bet on that.  Maybe BWG can get numbers on this.  The numbers won't lie, well only if they are done like FBR with SOS...,.couldn't resist.    

This is a quote from USSF Player Development Initiatives.  

"In addition to being on a team with their peers, "playing up" can also allow players to compete in a more challenging environment, which can also aid in their future development".  Now what is the benefit of not allowing the option to U10 players?  We are forcing them to play with their grade plus a grade below them.  How is that challenging for development?

Let's stay on topic, this is an age pure thread.

If we want to talk about the merits of small sided, another thread can be started. I'll bit however and throw this out there. For the top 20% of players at U8, 4v4 will be a complete waste of time. For the top 10%-20% of players at U10, 7v7 will be a complete waste of time.

But that is what US Soccer does, it develops the 80% that don't really care to be developed and takes the other 20% along for the ride. The ones that truly have the potential to become great lose out at the expense of the majority.

Have you ever seen some of the top 20% of current 06s play futsal? I wouldn't call that a waste of time.

I do think U7 and u8 should be 5v5 futsal style play, so we can kind of agree on the 4v4.

jm23jm wrote:  Yesterdays meeting was to discuss RULES CHANGES.  One of the rules we discussed was allowing U10 academy players the option to play up to select.  By not allowing it, you are basically splitting teams up and not giving them the option to stay with current team or if they choose find another team in their own age group.  Why? What is the benefit to the player?  I don't see the logic behind it.     

This is a quote from USSF Player Development Initiatives.  

"In addition to being on a team with their peers, "playing up" can also allow players to compete in a more challenging environment, which can also aid in their future development".  Now what is the benefit of not allowing the option to U10 players?  We are forcing them to play with their grade plus a grade below them.  How is that challenging for development?

I fail to see the logic behind it either. Did anyone at that meeting actually voice an opinion or reason why it should be kept in place? Or is it just a case of not enough voices requesting a change?

SkeetsG06 wrote:

Feverunited06 wrote:Just for the record, NTX's invitation to the discussion yesterday didn't make it to Fever.  We would have loved a chance to voice our opinions on the topic.  Yes, we are advertising for an AP 06 team because we have two 06 teams and an 07 team (that is almost exclusively AP already) and at 7 v 7 we could form another AP 06 team with just 1 to 2 more.  

Our parents would like to have the choice of either going select or repeating their U10 year, and we've sent a request to NTX for them to have another discussion group with small clubs to hear their opinions on the issue before making a decision.  

Unclear why Fever did not make the invitation to the discussion...that's wrong.  

Agree everyone should of had input.

However, to be honest, there are VERY few 06' AP that are genuinely good enough to play up.  I think the Labor Day tourney proved there are some big gaps between a lot of the teams in the gold division....and of the teams considered at the top, I am not convinced I saw many 06 AP girls that can play successfully against girls 12-18 months older.

Net, just on the low number of 06 AP players really good enough to play up, NTX got it right to not change the rule.  Actually maybe NTX should be applauded for making a decision for development and not monetarily based.

I am not normally a fan of big brother telling you to wear your helmet when you ride a bike but it seems to me that Skeets is right (oww, that hurt).   Historically, there are very few that have the quality to play up.  There may be several who would otherwise attempt to play up to keep teams together but that seems that it puts your AP 06 behind the 8 ball.   Most would struggle in AP 05 age brackets.  What you would end up with is a bunch of frustrated kids and a very weak AP 06 group.  
If your intention is to create a bunch of very solid and consistent age groups that can compete nationally, you "Dribble" them all to their own age group with new teams at least for this magical line in the sand.  What you find is that the new team is actually pretty good and they stay there.   The truly exceptional players can then opt to play up again if they so choose after everything has at least been "equal" for a year.   Like it or not, that would be the method to the madness.

May I ask a favor of those who understand this better than I do?

My DD is AP 06 Aug-Dec.  I understand what you guys are saying on the current rule and her not playing up next year and that she would not go through QT based on that.  I also understand that Jan-July 06 will be going through QT.  Can you verify what I understand are the options is correct?

1. As everything currently sits, she can play on an '07 team until the 2017 mandate.  In 2017, she would presumably join a team which has already gone through QT or join a team with AP '06s which will try to qualify the next year.

2. She can play on a AP'06 team.  If AP is not mandated in 2016, she would then hypothetically be a practice player that couldn't play with the team until the 2017 mandate.  If AP is mandated in 2016, she would then go through QT with her team.

Thanks for the help!

Your DD is currently an 07 player with an 06 birth date. They are currently U9. As we understand things today:

In August 2016 teams will be classified as the age group of the oldest players on the roster. So her team will be an 06 team whether it is 06 AP or a mix of 06's and 07's. She will still be an academy player. They will be considered U10.

In August 2017, the AP 06's will be going select (U11). She will go with them. If there are any 07 birthdays still on her team, as things stand today, they will not be allowed to go select with her in a NTX-sanctioned league like LHGCL.

Thank you jogobonito07! Is it also safe to assume that if AP gets voted on in January and goes into effect in 2016, your August 2017 scenario is accelerated to August 2016?

No. The 06 birth years will not go select until 2017. The 05 birth years will go select in 2016. That much has been firmly established.

Most feel pretty certain AP will go into effect in 2016 to get a "head start" on the mandate which takes effect in 2017.

We are in a similar situation to yours and feel there really is no need to change anything at this point.

Thanks for the clarification!

I don't think '06s will be weak. As parents look to make moves, the good players will rise to the top. '06 platinum will be strong, the gap between platinum and gold will be even wider though.

'05 D1 will be ridiculously weak, especially if it's 20 teams.

Respectful disagreement...

Practical Application… Tomorrows ‘05 division / (class) is essentially Todays ‘05 & ‘06 players (for the most part). The 05’s who have been competing in today’s ‘06 class will essentially be playing against the ‘05 kids they have currently been competing against. I state this because all of the TOP ‘06 teams and many mid-level teams spent a good portion of their previous development time playing in the ‘05 girls and boys classes. If you follow the logic of iron sharpens iron and you believe the current ‘06 class is very strong here in NTX, as is the current ’05 class, then what you will have is a shift in the eccentric classes of the decade (from ’06 & ’05 to ’04 & ’05). The shame is the direction the proposed rulings seem to be headed based on the meetings this week. If NO Flexibility or CHOICE is given to the PURE AGE ’06 then that decision comes off as punitive in nature. The TOP AGE PURE ’06 players will go from training, playing, and developing game competition awareness against essentially ’04 & ’05 players today to ’07 players tomorrow. That is where the train runs off the track for me… The intent or spirit of the moves US Youth Soccer is trying to identify with is creating more dynamic well rounded players. If you follow the logic that the reasoning behind the seemingly mature development of the NTX ’05 &’06 classes compared to players and play around the country (i.e. Super Copa and Surf Cup as examples), are direct results of increased small sided play and playing up, then why would you eliminate that opportunity for the ’06 player to have the choice of continuing to do so? Furthermore stifling that opportunity goes against the spirit of what the intended purpose is supposed to be about plus it negatively impacts any’06 worthy of and willing to play up. It’s a penalty and punitive to that player and it creates a “wasted” year for those Top AGE PURE ’06 player who desire to play up. If the focus is development and developing a more balanced well round player and the NTX ’06 class has already embarked down that road by already focusing heavily on small sided play and playing up, why interrupt what has gotten us to the lead? Train is off the track! Must not just be about Development, there must be another agenda at play or the wrong folks are calling the shots! My opinions only! Food for thought! No ’06 DD in the race!

The issue isn't the initiative. The rule about playing up is simply a NTX rule, some other areas may have it, but I know not all.

The ones that carried the most weight were the big dogs.

AtThePitch wrote:The issue isn't the initiative. The rule about playing up is simply a NTX rule, some other areas may have it, but I know not all.  

The ones that carried the most weight were the big dogs.

Still don't see what the motivation to keep this arbitrary rule is. Usually in NTX you just follow the $$. In this case the big dogs are turning away $3k per 06 kid who wanted to play up with their existing team.

Did anyone speak in favor of the existing rule at the meeting?

Every big club is the word on the street.

For every 06 that can't play up there is an 05 that will gladly take the spot. No money is lost.

Nature of the beast