Birth Year Age Matrix update

coachdom23 wrote:



When approved, 06's will be U11 and 05's will be U12 in Fall 2016. 07's will be U10

You sure bout that???
My matrix shows 2005s going select next fall

Not sure why it's so difficult to understand...

USSF update their chart...
for 2016-17 season...

U13 ... 2004 birth, 11v11, 35 min halves, 112x75 field, 8x24 goal
U12 ... 2005 birth, 9v9, 30 min halves, 75x47 field, 6.5x18.5 goal
U11 ... 2006 birth, 9v9, 30 min halves, 75x47 field, 6.5x18.5 goal
U10 ... 2007 birth 7v7, 25 min halves, 47x30 field, 6.5x18.5 goal

Pretty simple, plan accordingly. 06s & Fall 05s going Select.

Got it.

I've been away too long and I completetly missed USSF's latest change to the chart.

So....the list the LHGCL has on their homepage is incorrect?

"Birth Year Registration and how it affects your Current LHGCL Teams.
The Age Chart reflects the new Age Groupings for 2016 by Playing Year. LHGCL will move forward with this new age chart in the fall of 2016.

U10 - 06s
U11 - 05s
U12 - 04s
U13 - 03s
U14 - 02s
U15 - 01s
U16 - 00s
U17 - 99s
U18 - 98s
U19 - 97s

You got it, Just.
That Lhgcl chart is already outdated.
We're gonna really piss Cobb off if he has to explain again to those of us late to the party!

I still think the biggest question is what will LHGCL do about qualifying/byes for the 05's (especially if the new matrix holds true)?

exactly what they were going to do with the 05s before... qualify. Everyone understood there would be an AP 2005 QT this coming summer..

now there will be one for AP 05s and AP 06s.

This new chart will really tick off those younger 02s on 03 teams who just lost a year of ECNL exposure.

If half of the '05's are already select, it seems that the "young" 05's would simply become free agents. They would not go through select but simply join existing teams. News teams would form and those would go through qualifying just like any newly formed team and attempt to quality for D3. They would simply tryout for existing teams. If they make it great. It will create a mess this spring but that mess was made when they decided to do this AP thing at all. The only question was who would get messed and when.

As for ECNL, there are the same number of girls with the same number of years I think. ECNL will have to create a U19 division but the ECNL ages will simply adjust accordingly and go from U15 to U19 instead of the current U14-U18. U15 next year would be the AP 02's if I have the right matrix in front of me.

The way I understand it, there won't be any existing 05 teams to join. 05 teams will age up to 04 (assume they all have 04 kids right now) and AP 05 will have a full QT. Is that right?

The 05 age group consists of two group. The "old" '05's are currently classified as 2005 and are playing U11 right now. Those teams consist of 5 months of '04's (August to December) and 7 months of '05's (Jan to July). IN THEORY, the 04's will move on to U13 AP. The 05's have the option of "playing up" with the 04's or hanging around and playing U12. The "younger" '05's will play U12 next season and would merge with the remaining 05's. I have not heard if they will have existing teams and the youngers would merge in or if they will Dribble everyone to quality again for an '05 AP bracket.
I guess they could do either and that is part of what they are going to decide in January.

Yes, essentially half of the kids playing today will lose one year of select.

I don't know of any better way to improve development than by robbing kids of a years worth of development.

These guys are genius!

I am not going to defend the process. I think it is wrong on a number of levels but I'm not sure how they will lose a year of select. All of the '05's and '06's that thought they were going select are going select. The age groups that we have know historically just change names and we will see U19 be common for the seniors whereas now it is not. Basically, IMO, same kids, same advancement and same number of years albeit called different things.
Who actually gets robbed are the young 06's from an additional year of Academy. They thought they had another year and now they have to go select.

There is no such thing as Relative Age which is what they are trying to sell. Before it was 12 months worth of kids and now it is 12 months worth of kids. Some will be older and some will be younger. This was all done so that the U16-U23 boys could compete better on the National Stage as they would be 5 months older on average as that is what the rest of the world does. They could not grandfather it because they want to win now and can't wait 10 years for it to filter through. That's the reason. Very simple.

Now, I do think that in two years after this all settles, it will just be a bad memory, teams will be broken but they will all find new teams and new friends and the new friends will be just as cool as the old friends but I do agree that it is sh--ty and creates more drama and angst than is necessary.

DDdad, I agree with everything you wrote. One quick question, any chance they move U12 to first year of select? I am not sure if the Select age groups are defined by NTX or US Soccer. Are we in a world where now 4th graders are going select?

DDdad wrote:

As for ECNL, there are the same number of girls with the same number of years I think.   ECNL will have to create a U19 division but the ECNL ages will simply adjust accordingly and go from U15 to U19 instead of the current U14-U18.  U15 next year would be the AP 02's if I have the right matrix in front of me.  

My understanding is that ECNL will go from U14-U18/19. The fifth and final year of ECNL would be a combined group that covers 2 birth years.  There is a letter that (supposedly) went out to DOCs of ECNL clubs and mentions this.  Of course, that (supposed) letter also included the wrong/old/pre-updated age matrix.

Let's stipulate the logic is out the door.

With the old matrix, I could see that occurring. There would be a few (handful) of birth year seniors looking for a home their last year when the rest of their class graduates. With the new matrix, each group basically jumps a year in terms of what we think of as the classifications. The '00s (mostly Birth year '99) become U 18 next year but they are all Juniors. The '99's (mostly birth year '98) become U19 next year but they are all Seniors. 75% of the 00's will have yet to commit and 25% of the 99's have yet to commit at the very least. It makes 0 sense to combine those two groups together as this is not a one time thing. This would be the case every year. The '00's (next year Jrs) would be U19 their Sr year and what? combine back with the U18 group? The only logical (I know...) way is to form a U19 ECNL group which is where the Seniors would fall. The trick is that none of this is MANDATED by USSF until Fall 2017 so not all the country is converting at the same time so unless ECNL converts now, the current Sophomores and Juniors could become a casualty.

I believe that letter did go out. I would guess that ECNL will modify their stance as USSF has modified the matrix.

MrRogers wrote:Yes, essentially half of the kids playing today will lose one year of select.

I don't know of any better way to improve development than by robbing kids of a years worth of development.

These guys are genius!

So you believe going select is better for development than academy soccer? Not sure I agree with that. Only thing I see changes is less games and more money. Am I going to magically get better development because I have to pay more to play less?

http://www.girlsclassicleague.org/news_article/show/556832?referrer_id=842169

Below is from the letter that (supposedly) went out.  It went out before the age matrix update.  I assume you can just switch the age group names and leave the stated plan in place.  The 1998/1999 group would now be U18/19 while the 2003s would be U14.  The rest of the ECNL age groups fall in between.

ECNL Changes Due to Birth Year Registration / Age Group Cut-Offs: EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2016
Beginning August 1, 2016, ECNL teams will be formed using the new age group cut-off date of January 1. The most significant impact of this change is that teams will now generally consist of players in two different school years; in other words, players born from January 1 to July 31 will generally be a year older in school than the players born from August 1 to December 31. To accommodate the structural challenges imposed by these changes, ECNL competition will be structured as follows in 2016-2017:
Age Group
Birth Year (Jan 1)
ECNL National Event Requirement
U17/18
1998/1999 (Juniors/Seniors)
2 Regular Season ECNL National Events
U16
2000 (Sophomores/Juniors)
3 Regular Season ECNL National Events
U15
2001 (Freshman/Sophomores)
3 Regular Season ECNL National Events
U14
2002 (8th Graders/Freshman)
1 Regular Season ECNL National Events
U13
2003 (7th Graders/8th Graders)
Optional Regular Season ECNL Events Only

The new ECNL competition structure outlined above addresses several challenges imposed by the mandates:
· U17/18 Players: The combination of the U17 and U18 age groups has a positive developmental impact by insuring U17 players play “up” while also addressing the inherent player shortage that would otherwise occur in “pure” U18 competition in a calendar-based age group. (This shortage occurs because in a calendar-based age group every year a percentage of “rising U18s” will actually be graduating from high school and will no longer be participating in youth soccer.)
· College Showcasing: As the oldest ECNL age group will now include a high percentage of juniors in high school, this age group will have increased collegiate showcasing needs. Accordingly, this age group will now have 2 required ECNL National Events each year to allow appropriate showcasing. The total number of required ECNL events per club will remain the same (9 per year), as the youngest age group including freshman aged players will only have 1 event.
· 5 Years of ECNL Competition. For development reasons, it is important to maintain five years of ECNL competition for players. By using a January 1 age group cut-off, the youngest age group in the ECNL will now technically be labeled U13 – although this age group will actually include players that are only 6 months younger than would have entered the ECNL in previous years.

Blues Fan wrote:

MrRogers wrote:Yes, essentially half of the kids playing today will lose one year of select.

I don't know of any better way to improve development than by robbing kids of a years worth of development.

These guys are genius!

So you believe going select is better for development than academy soccer? Not sure I agree with that. Only thing I see changes is less games and more money. Am I going to magically get better development because I have to pay more to play less?

+1

Also, that update rogue posted make it appear that 05ap will be 11v11.

Sho'nuff wrote:

Blues Fan wrote:

MrRogers wrote:Yes, essentially half of the kids playing today will lose one year of select.

I don't know of any better way to improve development than by robbing kids of a years worth of development.

These guys are genius!

So you believe going select is better for development than academy soccer? Not sure I agree with that. Only thing I see changes is less games and more money. Am I going to magically get better development because I have to pay more to play less?

+1

Also, that update rogue posted make it appear that 05ap will be 11v11.

I hope not!

Lurker posting, so bare with me (swore I wouldn't post again on here, lol):

The way I interpret the new "rules" is the only reason AP '06 are going select is because the Lake Highlands "season" ends in 2017? AP '06 are u10 the entire 2016 year, correct? Simple fix in my head is

1. Change the season dates, maybe even 6 month seasons? As stated other places, do away with byes, relagation and the like.

2. Decide to completely dump LHGCL, and usher in a new entity that actually has the consumer a top priority

3. Why do we sign July 1? Why can't it be pushed back until, say Feb 1, 2017? Qualify in February. Season starts March, ends in December? My opinion is they have figured out a way to get 1.5 years worth of new money vs. the normal 1 year.

Seems nothing is final yet. Whole thing seems rather pointless, and definitely not enough thought put into it. Especially when you consider the millions of dollars this affects. Has the feel of  a high school experiment.

9 year olds signing 1 year contracts in a few months with coaches and teams that haven't really even began to be formed seems kinda ludicrous to me.

fireman1594 wrote:Lurker posting, so bare with me (swore I wouldn't post again on here, lol):

2. Decide to completely dump LHGCL, and usher in a new entity that actually has the consumer a top priority

9 year olds signing 1 year contracts in a few months with coaches and teams that haven't really even began to be formed seems kinda ludicrous to me.

Agree, it doesn't make any sense for a 9 year old to go select, they need more time in Academy.

Yes, it is time to form a new league that is consumer oriented. USSF sucks, even worse for LHGCL.

Would your new league have promotion relegation?
Would your league be AP?
If not, why not?

Of course it would be age pure.

As for the promotion, regulation, it seems to give the clubs all (maybe most) the power. For discussion sake, why not have qualifying tournament every year? In my opinion, what you did for me last year doesn't matter as much as what you are going to do for me today and tomorrow (speaking in a highly competitive sports world). Forces coaches and clubs to crank out the best product they can in order to earn future compensation. So many factors. Some, kiddos are in this for life lessons, bonding, structure, etc. It's a very broad spectrum! And everyone definitely sees the view from their little world.  But their has to be people that are capable and responsible at the top. With the experience and passion to base decisions on what is right. Well, maybe right for 80%, I highly doubt anyone could ever achieve an approval rating higher than that with this crowd! Me included. Lol.

You understand the promotion and relegation as used in the professional ranks is not exactly known for fostering an environment of development.

Perfect example... the EPL,  watch a match and count the number of English players on the pitch, on the bench, or even on the reserves side...

It's a stated known problem.  Richest league in the world and all the money is spent on finding and buying the better players from elsewhere.

Promotion and relegation is what fosters the known issues with this area.  Focus is on the W, not on the DEVELOPMENT of players.

Why, because the W brings the parents, with the parents comes the cash...

Can their be development and winning... of course there can be, but is usually not the case in this environment sadly.