Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USSF adds an even younger age group

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    Sorry, I have to go with the other guy on this one. It's the 2002's turn next year (as it has been with all older-Freshman/younger-Sophomore aged teams in the past), no matter what the U designation is, to play in a combined age group. That's what happens those last four years in the DA program. The '02s had this year to themselves, why shouldn't the '03s get a similar year to themselves at the same point on the development timeline before hitting the big leagues and having to compete with the older kids? You were just hoping for an exception for your kid due to the re-alignment and are disappointed it's remaining fair.
    You are agreeing with me. The 02's have to compete with 01's for the same team. Actually I think that this allows the 03's that extra year to get through puberty. Some kids at that age look like men and some still kids.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      You are agreeing with me. The 02's have to compete with 01's for the same team. Actually I think that this allows the 03's that extra year to get through puberty. Some kids at that age look like men and some still kids.
      That would have happened anyway. You really should read the informatio closely, you are very confused. Sounds like what the other poster suggested, you are trying to 'spin' this announcement in terms of how in impacts your kid who is already in DAP. Hint: there is no change.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Nope, completely clueless. Unless you are obsessed with your child's 'u' designation, there is absolutely no change at all for boys already in DAP i.e. 2004 and older, none. You might have conconted some plans based on rumours but that is irrelevant. No change.
        This is correct. The only difference is the addition of the youngest age group, '06s. All other age groups, single and combined, remain the same. If you're having trouble understanding this, write out all the age groups in birth year format (not U-designation), and note those combined age groups. For next year, just slide everyone up a year and you'll see everyone fits into the groupings as they should having progressed a year. The incoming '05s will slot into the old '04s age group and you'll make a new age group for the addition of the '06s.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Nope, completely clueless. Unless you are obsessed with your child's 'u' designation, there is absolutely no change at all for boys already in DAP i.e. 2004 and older, none. You might have conconted some plans based on rumours but that is irrelevant. No change.
          This person is completely lost!!

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            This person is completely lost!!
            LOL, sorry, it is you who is lost. Like I said, write out the birth year designations this year noting the years that are combined, slide them all up a year for next year. You'll see it follows the exact progression of one year passing, nothing has changed but the addition of the youngest age group. Try it, it will really clear things up for you!

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              LOL, sorry, it is you who is lost. Like I said, write out the birth year designations this year noting the years that are combined, slide them all up a year for next year. You'll see it follows the exact progression of one year passing, nothing has changed but the addition of the youngest age group. Try it, it will really clear things up for you!
              You are asking her to do 5th grade math. Good luck with that!

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Surprised they don't let the new U12 only teams added this year expand to U13 next year with this re-alignment. It's the same aged kids as this year's U12s (5th/6th graders), so why not let these younger kids stay more local for another year (playing the same group of local clubs as this year's U12s) before the hardcore travel kicks in?
                Sorry but they only care about the real DA clubs.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Sorry but they only care about the real DA clubs.
                  OK then, hope Revs are ready to add another age group. I'm sure they'd rather outsource those '05s to their "alliance" partners. Seems to me bringing in '04s and '05s in one year might be a little too much for them to handle....

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    OK then, hope Revs are ready to add another age group. I'm sure they'd rather outsource those '05s to their "alliance" partners. Seems to me bringing in '04s and '05s in one year might be a little too much for them to handle....
                    Have you been to an RDS? There are tons of parents down there wringing their hands and hoping their kids are the chosen ones. Couple that with all the silly alliance clubs serving up their best players and the Revs will be just fine.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Have you been to an RDS? There are tons of parents down there wringing their hands and hoping their kids are the chosen ones. Couple that with all the silly alliance clubs serving up their best players and the Revs will be just fine.
                      Not really talking about finding enough players. What about money (will the new age group be free?) and training space, sounds like they don't have enough time on the field as it is with some age groups getting less than mandated practice time.....

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        Not really talking about finding enough players. What about money (will the new age group be free?) and training space, sounds like they don't have enough time on the field as it is with some age groups getting less than mandated practice time.....
                        They had less than the mandated practice time even when they only had U16 and U18 teams.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          Not really talking about finding enough players. What about money (will the new age group be free?) and training space, sounds like they don't have enough time on the field as it is with some age groups getting less than mandated practice time.....
                          That's where the issue is. The Revs do whatever they can to skirt DA rules. Adding another team that costs them more money they don't want to spend? I wouldn't put it past them to start charging the youngest teams then making it free for the older kids. There are a few other DA clubs that do that. Lord knows there's plenty of parents that would pay for it.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Unbelievable. Just like last year, now we are going to have thread after thread after thread about age groups / birth year designations. I'll get my popcorn ready.

                            The whole thing turns me right off to the Academy program. What a mess! For what it is worth my kid would likely not "make it" anyway (outside of a watered down "pre-academy for babies" type of program that we have now with this alliance stuff).

                            Everyone... unless your kid is a huge standout... have them stick to their books!

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              Unbelievable. Just like last year, now we are going to have thread after thread after thread about age groups / birth year designations. I'll get my popcorn ready.

                              The whole thing turns me right off to the Academy program. What a mess! For what it is worth my kid would likely not "make it" anyway (outside of a watered down "pre-academy for babies" type of program that we have now with this alliance stuff).

                              Everyone... unless your kid is a huge standout... have them stick to their books!
                              This won't last long as it only impacts a fraction of players. There will forever be threads bit**ing about the Revs.

                              Little of this is surprising since DA had already said they were waiting a year to make the designation changes. And there has been talk of splitting age groups into single year for a long time.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                                This won't last long as it only impacts a fraction of players. There will forever be threads bit**ing about the Revs.

                                Little of this is surprising since DA had already said they were waiting a year to make the designation changes. And there has been talk of splitting age groups into single year for a long time.
                                Yes, yes, and no. This is NOT about splitting age groups, the USSF headline is missleading.. They have added yet a younger age group.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                Working...
                                X