US Soccer changes ( Age Pure)

It's just a cutt-off date that's being moved back. You still will have older and stronger boys but now they'll be the January-April bdays, the September-December bdays will now be the younger boys on an age pure team. If the clubs go age pure and not play up.....this change will mainly be felt by the current older boys (Aug-Dec bdays) since they would have to play/compete vs. older boys that are currently on an older team. The current younger boys (Jan-July bdays), would have an advantage moving down or to an age pure team since they have been playing the older boys in our current system. I'm not sure what this would do for development since in any system you'll still have boys that can be up to 11+ months older. With this said, the elite player will still be an elite player no matter what month their bday falls since they usually play a year up and an on rare occasions, 2yrs up. This has the makings of being a mess, imo.

Number13 wrote:

allen04 wrote:
 
We are assuming then that those coaches have picked the better soccer players; not just the bigger older/faster soccer players.

What is a better soccer player?    Do we need to put Harrison Bergeron weights on Raheem Sterling so he won't be worth $75M?  

You said the best players on the AP teams would be the younger ones.   Best how?   I thought we all accepted the US Soccer "reality" that the older kids will get picked at younger ages because they are more advanced physically which makes them better today, or are we going with that is bullshit?  

Seems plausible that the younger 03s may have gotten more of a chance to "shine" to date by virtue of being the stars on their 04 teams, but that is not enough to overcome the older 03s if you are picking a team for today, IMO.  Its not like those kids have been eating paste all these years, the very best of the 03s born between Jan-July have also been given a chance to shine against older kids...since there are a zillion teams.   Once you start sorting out the grains and refining the product until you only have the good kids represented, you are going to find that the biggest variable is going to be age.   The great kid born in January is going to have a big advantage on the great kid born in December.   At these ages.  Speaking as a parent of a kid born in December.   Who plays with some 03 BY kids who would fare pretty well in 04 CL.  

The players you want on your team the most at U13 are going to be the older kids.   As skilled, bigger, faster.  Whether or not that is right is another story altogether.   But that is how it will work.   Just like it worked the other way on the other calendar.

my $0.02.  Cheers

Completely agree with this and have seen it take place as PA and DA teams form. The younger ( Aug-Dec) birth year kids have to really be strong to make teams and compete with older month kids in the same year. I never assumed the effect would be that much but the rosters don't lie. Most PA and DA rosters are full of kids born in Jan-July and the younger kids have to really work to make an impact on those teams.

With the 03 and 04, the 03 birth year kids that have been playing 04 Classic league, in my opinion, will have to fight hard to make and play on the 03 PA teams. For years, they have been playing with kids mainly younger than them and now they will have to outplay kids that are used to playing against late 02 birth year kids. Add to the fact some of the older 03s may be starting to hit puberty and that adds a whole other problem of size and muscle. The years of 6th, 7th and 8th grade are huge for kids growth and you get some lopsided physical matchups on the field.

I think there will be less "playing up" than a lot of people think. If an birth year 04 that has been playing 04 Classic wants to stay and play 03 with the late 03 birth year kids that have traditionally been in 04, that BY 04 kid will now have to beat out kids born in Jan 03 to be on that team. Kids some 18 months older. It may happen but when the coaches have the option of taking a Jan 2003 kid or a July 2004 kid, the stats say the Jan 2003 will be on the roster most of the time.

None of it should matter much as there will be a place on a competitive team for all these kids, it may just not look much like where he has been playing the last couple years.

This change absolutely makes sense if we are gonna create better players to compete against the the world. Right now we focus much of our time with August to December players that take up too much of the playing time and focus of the coach. When they finally Make it to PA their confidence gets shattered that they can't dominate since they are so young yet have been the focus. The Jan and Feb birthdays start to dominate. But they have never been the focus so at 12 and 13 they are already behind. Had they been the focus in the beginning, they would have the confidence and training that would have made them better players. " In the European youth soccer leagues, the cutoff date is Dec. 31. So when a coach is assessing two players in the same age bracket, one who happened to have been born in January and the other in December, the player born in January is likely to be bigger, stronger, more mature. Guess which player the coach is more likely to pick? He may be mistaking maturity for ability, but he is making his selection nonetheless. And once chosen, those January-born players are the ones who, year after year, receive the training, the deliberate practice and the feedback — to say nothing of the accompanying self-esteem — that will turn them into elites." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07wwln_freak.html?

pitch18 wrote:This change absolutely makes sense if we are gonna create better players to compete against the the world. Right now we focus much of our time with August to December players that take up too much of the playing time and focus of the coach. When they finally Make it to PA their confidence gets shattered that they can't dominate since they are so young yet have been the focus. The Jan and Feb birthdays start to dominate. But they have never been the focus so at 12 and 13 they are already behind. Had they been the focus in the beginning, they would have the confidence and training that would have made them better players. " In the European youth soccer leagues, the cutoff date is Dec. 31. So when a coach is assessing two players in the same age bracket, one who happened to have been born in January and the other in December, the player born in January is likely to be bigger, stronger, more mature. Guess which player the coach is more likely to pick? He may be mistaking maturity for ability, but he is making his selection nonetheless. And once chosen, those January-born players are the ones who, year after year, receive the training, the deliberate practice and the feedback — to say nothing of the accompanying self-esteem — that will turn them into elites." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07wwln_freak.html?

So the way to keep up with the rest of the world is to prioritize the early years birthdays all along?   We just need to toss out the Aug-Dec kids from the beginning and concentrate on the older ones?    Its the switch at 12 that is killing us?  

One might think that part of the problem is that (at least in the US) you pick the kids who get the "elite" training starting at 12-13 years old.  At which point the physical disparities are hitting their highest point.   And thus you ALWAYS take the older kids, and perhaps not the most skilled kids.  Because the physical disparities are so huge that they overwhelm skill differences once you start really narrowing your window.    And that has nothing to do with the calendar being "off", that is just how/when we choose to identify the kids.

But I'm quite sure the bulk of the "problem" is just that we are a shitty soccer culture.  And, as with genetics, shitty begets shitty.  We need better coaching.  And smarter parents.  And incentives to attract better kids.  And on and on and on.   Multi-generational fix at best.

Thank you Number13. Let's get more kids participating in soccer at younger ages, 3-8, instead of basketball, football, baseball by making it fun. Align by school year so their school friends are their soccer friends. 4v4 at U8 is not as fun as 7v7. Emphasize touches at practice instead of scrimmaging. Make getting better a focus of PRACTICE.

More involved kids will also growing soccer culturally. If implemented everywhere including rec soccer, these changes will negatively impact MLS 10-30 years from now.

I'm pretty sure 4v4 is always more fun than 7v7 or 11v11.  Isn't it?   Maybe that is kid dependent.

Align by school year so their school friends are their soccer friends.

This seems to be the biggest push back I have read in other forums; especially txsoccer.net.

Is there some kind of limit of friends kids can have?

Kids that I know that love soccer make friends by playing soccer; school, neighborhood, pickup games, camps, ODP, tournaments; doesn't matter. Put them with a group of strangers playing and by the end they will have friends (and likely foes).

allen04 wrote:

Align by school year so their school friends are their soccer friends.

This seems to be the biggest push back I have read in other forums; especially txsoccer.net.  

Is there some kind of limit of friends kids can have?

Kids that I know that love soccer make friends by playing soccer; school, neighborhood, pickup games, camps, ODP, tournaments; doesn't matter.  Put them with a group of strangers playing and by the end they will have friends (and likely foes).

It seems to me that the school year alignment thing applies more at the end of their soccer careers than at the beginning.   And I don't even know if its a friend thing, its more a "end the soccer when they leave the house" thing. Maybe I'm wrong.

We limit our kid's friends to 4.   Bodyguard, Chris Carter "fall guy", rather unfortunate looking kid who provides a favorable comparison, and then the nerd who will do the homework.

Does everyone think Classic League will adapt this (age pure) for all ages for sure?

soccerdad#6 wrote:Does everyone think Classic League will adapt this (age pure) for all ages for sure?

I think they will HAVE to, all NTX rosters will have to follow this Aug 17 at the latest. Right? Clearly I'm not sure, but what else can CL do? Do they even have an incentive to disagree? They are going to end up with the same # of teams and the same net revenue going into not-for-profit pockets. They (CL) have this club reps meeting Sunday night where in theory they are going to outline what (they think) is happening.

Assign the byes to the older age group and let the chips fall where they may. Not the end of the world, but I don't see it curing anything though.

So take the Nov. 00 birthday playing 01 currently. Independent club. CL team. Team is largely 00 birthdays. What happens? They can't play in 01 and they don't have a bye in 00. Do I start looking for a new team for my son to play on next year in the 00 bracket? If a team wants to stay together, would they have to go back to PPL D4 and start over (in 00), or qualify for CL in the 00 bracket? Theoretically there should be spots on the 00 teams for kids who have to move up to 99. Works better in a large club with lots of teams, but for independent clubs? Not so much.

forward thinker wrote:So take the Nov. 00 birthday playing 01 currently.  Independent club.  CL team.  Team is largely 00 birthdays.  What happens?  They can't play in 01 and they don't have a bye in 00.  Do I start looking for a new team for my son to play on next year in the 00 bracket?  If a team wants to stay together, would they have to go back to PPL D4 and start over (in 00), or qualify for CL in the 00 bracket?  Theoretically there should be spots on the 00 teams for kids who have to move up to 99.  Works better in a large club with lots of teams, but for independent clubs?  Not so much.  

Let's assume this takes effect August 2016, and CL will award byes based on this year's performance.  

You give the byes "up" a year.  You can't force kids off the team by giving it to the younger year.  So the 01 team with a CL bye they earned this (coming) year in U15 bracket gets a bye in the U16 bracket.....same as they would without a change.  Its just the U16 bracket next year would mean "kids born in 2000 or later".   Your whole team can stay together with the 01 BY kids playing up.  Yes, chances are that will not happen and the younger kids may drift off to a new U15 team and you will add Jan-July '00 kids to make your team "older".

As they already have U19 at the top I don't think this means they need to add anything.   I guess they could in theory blow the whole thing up and start over with qualifying, but that seems insane.   But this is youth soccer, ruling out "insane" is not always a safe bet.  

But, sure, the whole thing does not work as well for the independent clubs.   But that is the name of the game to begin with.  The big clubs could essentially re-arrange the kids internally to coordinate the new calendar.

I can see the school year alignment because half of the boys their senior year will be left looking for a new soccer team as half of their team just graduated the summer before and are off to college. It happened to me in high school but only because I played up an age group when we moved to Texas. Too me it was not as much playing with my friends because there was no one from my school on my team.

Honestly the only thing I think this change will do is align the age groups with the rest of the world. It is going to cause a lot of confusion to do it. This won't change the development of kids and I don't think 4 v 4 games will do that. I think that will make smaller children decide to play other sports instead (not fun anymore). I would say most of the development comes from the coaching and happens at practice.

LLHowie wrote:

Honestly the only thing I think this change will do is align the age groups with the rest of the world.  It is going to cause a lot of confusion to do it.  This won't change the development of kids and I don't think 4 v 4 games will do that.  I think that will make smaller children decide to play other sports instead (not fun anymore).  I would say most of the development comes from the coaching and happens at practice.

I don't see where 4v4 games makes it "no fun".   How does a 6 year old know that 4v4 is less fun than 6v6?   I guess listening to their parents bitch is one way.   That's how they figure out the coach is a moron and so-so blew the game.  Ymmv, but my U9 is WAY more sad about getting too old for 4v4 (indoors BlueSky) than excited about moving to 9v9 outdoors.  

Most of the development comes from the coaching and at practice.  No doubt.  It seems better at a younger age to be teaching them to play the ball to feet and control it.   Which seems more of a small field thing than a big field thing.   A big field thing becomes speed and kicking.   I'm pretty sure older BB's U7-U9 team was winning 95% of their games vs all comers largely based on having a kid who would score on every free kick under 30 yards and another kid who was great at corners.  Dribble, get fouled or win corner, goal.  They tried to play possession soccer, and they hustled and were organized, and no concerted effort to get free kicks....but the winning part came down to a lot of free kicks.   And people like winning.   In an ironic turn, now nobody on BBs team has any clue how to score a goal.  

We have always done small-sided.  3v3, 5v5, 7v7, futsal.  Possibly because my kids are better at it than they are when more kids get on the field.  And its all about parental enjoyment, right?   At small sided you HAVE to make good decisions.  You have to be comfortable in possession.   You have to have a good touch.   You have to operate quickly.   You have to be able to win 1v1 battles.   Well, you don't have to, but there is no hiding it just by running and fouling and kicking the ball far.   Maybe being good at 4v4 never translates to 11v11.   But from the biased point of view, it would seem like a good thing if more of the kids were trying to get good at 4v4.  Would make for better looking soccer.  Maybe.  Or maybe like everybody else I think better looking soccer = the soccer that BB would choose to play.  

But again, no panacea.  We suck at soccer.

I agree with all that you said except I think making U6 do 4v4 for development makes the game too serious at that age and scares a lot of them away. It is no longer about letting them play soccer, it seems more about preparing for the US team. There is a place to start 4v4 as development but not sure the right age. Maybe you let the children who just want to play still do bigger fields with more kids on the field and those that want to develop go the Academy route and those are the teams that play in leagues with 4v4 for development.

LLHowie wrote:I think that will make smaller children decide to play other sports instead (not fun anymore).

Larger fields at younger ages reward athleticism over technical ability. The purpose of the change is to help the US develop more technically sound players.

Playing 7v7 at u7 rewards the big, fast kids that can score from 20 yards out with a high shot at the crossbar that no goalie at this age could hope to even get a finger on. That doesn't require an ounce of technical skill, just requires a big kid with a big foot who can boot the ball a mile.

4v4 with very small goals should require far more ball control.

I think you will see more lopsided scores if they play small-sided.   The stronger team will KILL the other team. In 9v9 or 11v11, sometimes the game is tight and you get a surprise. In smaller sided, it's ruthless and one way. And that may well be less fun for folks. Unless, y'know, its your kid scoring 25 goals.

LLHowie wrote:I agree with all that you said except I think making U6 do 4v4 for development makes the game too serious at that age and scares a lot of them away.  It is no longer about letting them play soccer, it seems more about preparing for the US team.  There is a place to start 4v4 as development but not sure the right age.  Maybe you let the children who just want to play still do bigger fields with more kids on the field and those that want to develop go the Academy route and those are the teams that play in leagues with 4v4 for development.

I thought Rec was for kids that "just wanted to play" and Academy was for kids looking for more competition and skill development?

Number13 wrote:I think you will see more lopsided scores if they play small-sided.   The stronger team will KILL the other team.    In 9v9 or 11v11, sometimes the game is tight and you get a surprise.   In smaller sided, it's ruthless and one way.   And that may well be less fun for folks.   Unless, y'know, its your kid scoring 25 goals.  

This will kill the parents who only think in term of winning. The kids will have fun! And small-sided games will help the big kids who will be able to develop their skills instead of running with the ball and score. And discover later on that all the running did not make them better soccer players ...

It will also kill a lot of coaches who don't teach skills. Parents will be able to see really fast if their player is developing or not. You can't hide in small sided games.
Players don't "develop" skills on their own. Skills are learned from coaches, players and or videos in a type of pyramid structure that takes players from simple defensive moves to combination attacking moves. (Coerver is an example) Sounds like a good biz opportunity for skills only start-up academies.

Rec is for kids who just want to play but what I was saying is that maybe Rec shouldn't adopt some of these changes and Academy would adopt them.

LLHowie wrote:Rec is for kids who just want to play but what I was saying is that maybe Rec shouldn't adopt some of these changes and Academy would adopt them.

Academy and CL should adopt the changes, but there is no need for rec. What about Plano or Arlington PL?

There is still way too much unknown to really speculate at the moment. I lead a soccer board that has a year to implement these changes and I still so not really understand how this will shake out.

It seems to me at U13 my son's team has alot more fun at the 3v3, 4v4 and 5v5 events. It may just be the change of pace but they seem to enjoy themselves more.

I was actually hoping they would have rec change first, see what issues develop to iron out before putting the competitive kids thru it.

The thing to keep in mind, most of these changes only really affect 2 or 3 states. Most states have been playing small sided for years. That is why it is hard to find out of state tournaments at U11 and U12 unless you are willing to play 9V9. North Texas should have made these changes 10 years ago when rest of nation did.

I would be in favor of allowing teams to roster maybe two spots to kids who are technically in the next older bracket, say kids born Oct-DEC of 02 could actually be placed on an 03 team. Limit it to last three months of previous year and one or two roster spots. In adult they allow a couple twenty-something year olds to play on the U30 team. Same scenario.

I would be in favor of allowing teams to roster maybe two spots to kids who are technically in the next older bracket, say kids born Oct-DEC of 02 could actually be placed on an 03 team.

I understand what you are going for; but part of the purpose of the switch is to encourage playing up; not down.

I understand that purpose, but players who are born late in the year whether it is calendar or school year will always be at disadvantage. In the case of a player say who is currently on an 03 U13 team who was born in July. Playing against kids born in August 02 is typically always going to be at an athletic advantage until end of puberty. Now we will have players born in Dec being in disadvantage against kids born in January. If this is all to make it better for kids, something should be put in place to help those kids. Just a thought that I know will never get accepted but heck half the stuff we talk about on here is fantasy anyway.

[quote="Sprint"][quote="Number13"]

allen04 wrote:
Harrison Bergeron weights  

Thanks for the laugh! Too funny. Vonnegut fan, eh?