Birth Year starting fall 2016?

[Unregistered]

Hello naysayers what say you now

Personally I think it will happen, but why over two years? Do it all in 2017 - gives plenty of time for parents/clubs, etc. to learn about it and prepare. If some adopt in 2016 and some wait to 2017 it will be very confusing and muddled: you can't have teams in the same league doing different cutoff dates.

[Unregistered]

How will this work? If teams are still formed for a Sept - June year, will (for example) the U14 team be for players who are under 14 as of the Jan in the middle of the season? if that's the case you would actually have kids (those with birthdays in Sept thru Dec) on the U14 team who are 12 when the season starts. Or conversely is teams are formed in Aug based on age at the beginning of the calendar year you would have kids on the U14 team who were actually 15 by the time the season ends in June.

[Unregistered]

How will this work? If teams are still formed for a Sept - June year, will (for example) the U14 team be for players who are under 14 as of the Jan in the middle of the season? if that's the case you would actually have kids (those with birthdays in Sept thru Dec) on the U14 team who are 12 when the season starts. Or conversely is teams are formed in Aug based on age at the beginning of the calendar year you would have kids on the U14 team who were actually 15 by the time the season ends in June.

Just think birthyear, forget the u. If your kid was born in 2001, they will be on the 2001 team. If born in 2002 on the 2002 team. It's actually pretty simple.

The mess will be next year when many clubs will be in 'transition" and others won't as will be a best practice rather than a mandated. The year after it's simple.

[Unregistered]

Just think birthyear, forget the u. If your kid was born in 2001, they will be on the 2001 team. If born in 2002 on the 2002 team. It's actually pretty simple.

The mess will be next year when many clubs will be in 'transition" and others won't as will be a best practice rather than a mandated. The year after it's simple.

It will always be bad for 8th graders with Aug-Dec birthdays since half the team will be in HS and unable to play due to the bonafide rule.

More stupidity from FIFA

[Unregistered]

It will always be bad for 8th graders with Aug-Dec birthdays since half the team will be in HS and unable to play due to the bonafide rule.

More stupidity from FIFA

But in making this change there will be many players impacted so there's an opportunity to create a "fall league" of some kind. CT already deals with this because they are one of the few states with a 12/21 school cutoff - 8th/9th grade mixed teams are in tough spot in the fall.

As for the staggered adoption - that is truly stupid. Do it once and be done with it. Each league is going to have to impose its own policy because you can't have half the teams doing one date and half another.

[Unregistered]

Copyright 2014 US Soccer "CONFIDENTIAL - Not to be shared without US Soccer approval"

Heh.

[Unregistered]

i personally think that doing the "you can start next year", but "must do it" the following year is kind of silly. Just pick a date if you are going to do it. And leave the town programs alone. Let the kids play with their classmates and have fun. For those serious about soccer and play club or other programs, switch to birth year. And yeah, they are no longer U10 or U11, its just whatever year the kid was born in.

[Unregistered]

Long term this would seem to benefit Aug-Dec kids. Challenged more when younger, essentially "playing up" half a year instead of down. Two years of "showcase" DAP if they are good enough: sophomore u16 (few 15s actually play) and junior u18. Jan-July only get junior year u16.

[Unregistered]

i personally think that doing the "you can start next year", but "must do it" the following year is kind of silly. Just pick a date if you are going to do it. And leave the town programs alone. Let the kids play with their classmates and have fun. For those serious about soccer and play club or other programs, switch to birth year. And yeah, they are no longer U10 or U11, its just whatever year the kid was born in.

I agree town rec and travel should be left as is. This should only be club and up. The two-year quasi-implementation is stupid.

Then again, nothing is official - just lots of talk. Even the link in this thread showing it is questionable. This was on the CT thread on the same topic and gives some background:

BOTN has a thread on this topic and the opening post is an interesting read. It includes:

"The reason why FIFA went to an August birthday almost thirty years ago was to make the formation of teams around school classes easier. This was hoped to encourage more children to play around the world. The problem was only Europe and North America benefited from the change. The rest of the world complained and the date was changed back. For the last decade only England and the US stuck with an August 1, date and England has now changed.

The reason there is reluctance in the US to change is three fold. First, while you are right the age cutoff to enter school varies widely across the US, using an early date (August rather than January) captures the greatest number of players. Using schools as a vehicle for reaching potential players is well established in the US , and it works best when you can have all of the players in one grade/class on a single team.

Second, one group that complained the loudest about a change to a January birth date was the college coaching community. College coaches recruit by class, not by age. On the boys side that may be changing with the Development Academy using a January 1 cut off, however, the vast majority of college coaches do not recruit Development Academy players. College Showcase events will see most coaches flock to particular years based on how the college recruits. A January 1, cutoff would have the effect of doubly the work of college coaches – they would have to watch twice as many teams to see the same number of potential recruits.

Finally, there are administrative costs associated with any change. At first blush it may seem petty, but the actual costs can be large. A representative of AYSO claim when the change was last considered that the cost in changing forms, printing new ones, changing web pages, etc., would be over $25,000 for them alone and that they would have no gain from the change."

http://www.backofthenet.com/62rd/ubb...US_#Post607296

http://talking-soccer.com/TS4/showth...125470&page=14

[Unregistered]

I agree town rec and travel should be left as is. This should only be club and up. The two-year quasi-implementation is stupid.

Then again, nothing is official - just lots of talk. Even the link in this thread showing it is questionable. This was on the CT thread on the same topic and gives some background:

BOTN has a thread on this topic and the opening post is an interesting read. It includes:

"The reason why FIFA went to an August birthday almost thirty years ago was to make the formation of teams around school classes easier. This was hoped to encourage more children to play around the world. The problem was only Europe and North America benefited from the change. The rest of the world complained and the date was changed back. For the last decade only England and the US stuck with an August 1, date and England has now changed.

The reason there is reluctance in the US to change is three fold. First, while you are right the age cutoff to enter school varies widely across the US, using an early date (August rather than January) captures the greatest number of players. Using schools as a vehicle for reaching potential players is well established in the US , and it works best when you can have all of the players in one grade/class on a single team.

Second, one group that complained the loudest about a change to a January birth date was the college coaching community. College coaches recruit by class, not by age. On the boys side that may be changing with the Development Academy using a January 1 cut off, however, the vast majority of college coaches do not recruit Development Academy players. College Showcase events will see most coaches flock to particular years based on how the college recruits. A January 1, cutoff would have the effect of doubly the work of college coaches – they would have to watch twice as many teams to see the same number of potential recruits.

Finally, there are administrative costs associated with any change. At first blush it may seem petty, but the actual costs can be large. A representative of AYSO claim when the change was last considered that the cost in changing forms, printing new ones, changing web pages, etc., would be over $25,000 for them alone and that they would have no gain from the change."

http://www.backofthenet.com/62rd/ubb...US_#Post607296

http://talking-soccer.com/TS4/showth...125470&page=14

1 and 2 ok, $25k to print new forms and changing a web page? What century is this?

[Unregistered]

1 and 2 ok, $25k to print new forms and changing a web page? What century is this?

Don't many other sports like track & hockey go by birth year? They seem to be doing fine. England switched to birth year in soccer also & is doing fine. It's not that birth year is better per se but it's way better to only have one system across the board. Club & elite shouldn't be different and the U.S. will do better in soccer and grow popularity of the sport if clubs (where the players start developing) are on the same time frame as elite and the rest of the world.

[Unregistered]

1 and 2 ok, $25k to print new forms and changing a web page? What century is this?

The AYSO representative did a poor job, perhaps, in describing the scope of change and the resulting cost. It's not small by any means.

[Unregistered]

One system is best. Too bad all elite pathways and rest of the world wasn't Aug-July because then we could all switch to that as the one age group system. The way it stands though, switching to birth year is the best way to go.

[Unregistered]

The AYSO representative did a poor job, perhaps, in describing the scope of change and the resulting cost. It's not small by any means.

I was involved with AYSO when I lived in another state. It is a great program for younger and rec kids - balanced teams, equal PT, very positive learning environment. But organizationally they were many years behind the curve in terms of technology. Not that long ago we were still doing paper registrations, and the website was a mess. Accurate estimate or not, the change does impose some costs onto organizations. Costs will be small for the average club and are a one time event. However AYSO is quite large (I think close to 500,000 kids?). Given its mission statement it shouldn't have to move to calendar year - it's more about learning in a fun environment. I don't even think travel programs should go to calendar year.

[Unregistered]

One system is best. Too bad all elite pathways and rest of the world wasn't Aug-July because then we could all switch to that as the one age group system. The way it stands though, switching to birth year is the best way to go.

Another post had

"The reason why FIFA went to an August birthday almost thirty years ago was to make the formation of teams around school classes easier. This was hoped to encourage more children to play around the world. The problem was only Europe and North America benefited from the change. The rest of the world complained and the date was changed back. For the last decade only England and the US stuck with an August 1, date and England has now changed."

Having one date across the globe makes sense and calendar year makes the most sense (schools run different calendars across the globe). At least from this prior post it looks like the US is the only country that doesn't follow it