Shift to Jan. 1 cutoff next year or year after?

[Unregistered]

Finally! Kids want to play on the best team they can. Kids and teams will be fine and soccer will develop more top players with elite and club programs on the same age groups. The players currently in one age group for club and another for elite play are being screwed so many months of potential elite players never reach that potential. If your kid only wants to play soccer to be with particular friends, play rec. Otherwise, get on board and breathe easy. Everything will be fine.

Make up of club teams has absolutely zero impact on player development for elite players (top 1 or 2 in Oregon). They are already playing in calendar year competitions anyway.

No one has ever been able to clearly describe the benefits of the calendar year because there aren't any. It's just different, and that seems to be enough for the folks that think their kid will somehow benefit from being on a team with different players than they have now.

[Unregistered]

In practice. Every punt is a 50/50 ball at best. Bowling it out is 99+% that you'll maintain possession.

Our goalie bowls the ball out every time. Even when there are 8 players on the opposing team on our side of the field. Works great. We've given up lots of easy goals because of it. Yeah, bowling the ball out is awesome.

[Slow Xavi]

I agree with everything you said except for heading the soccer ball.

There is no evidence that purposeful heading of the soccer ball is bad for you.
Where head injuries occur is when head collide while trying to head the ball.

Some will argue that there are 100's of players from the earlier days that are showing brain damage late into their lives...this is because the leather ball that was used in those days were very heavy and as hard as the head on your shoulders.

Head injuries from purposeful heading of the ball is a myth

I am not sure I disagree with you - NY Times ran a recent article questioning the connection between headers and concussions and found a relatively small % of soccer concussions result from heading.

I do think though that the some of the rules modifications at a local level have been made in response to the focused attention on concussion in the sport and a belief (maybe false) that prohibiting punting will reduce head injuries. There are a lot of parents that are very concerned about this issue and it feels like the subject is coming up all the time for coaches/boards/etc.

Well-intentioned local development leagues have been trying to respond to this injury concern as well as promoting playing out of the back. Watching development league games, I am not sure we've gotten it exactly right.

[Unregistered]

Make up of club teams has absolutely zero impact on player development for elite players (top 1 or 2 in Oregon). They are already playing in calendar year competitions anyway.

No one has ever been able to clearly describe the benefits of the calendar year because there aren't any. It's just different, and that seems to be enough for the folks that think their kid will somehow benefit from being on a team with different players than they have now.

One age-group system isn't inherently better than another. The problem lies in having two different systems in youth soccer in the U.S. Development of top players suffers. The rest of the world has switched to birth year so birth year is the way to go in order to have one system. Kids will still get to play with most of their friends and will get to make new friends. If a kid quits because a few friends end up on a new team, then rec soccer is better for them anyway. The elite kids born in summer and the ones stuck in the current 2-system gap who now stay playing soccer & develop to their potential will happily take the "I only play with my friends" players. England switched & their women's teams are doing just fine.

[Unregistered]

One age-group system isn't inherently better than another. The problem lies in having two different systems in youth soccer in the U.S. Development of top players suffers. The rest of the world has switched to birth year so birth year is the way to go in order to have one system. Kids will still get to play with most of their friends and will get to make new friends. If a kid quits because a few friends end up on a new team, then rec soccer is better for them anyway. The elite kids born in summer and the ones stuck in the current 2-system gap who now stay playing soccer & develop to their potential will happily take the "I only play with my friends" players. England switched & their women's teams are doing just fine.

How exactly does development of top players suffer with the current calendar? Does the coaching get better if we change the cut off date? Do the facilities get better? Does the competition get better? Do the players themselves suddenly get better? The answer to all of these is clearly "no". If there are 1 or 2 "truly elite" players in all of Oregon, why can't they just adjust their own calendar by playing up, instead of imposing unnecessary changes on everyone else in the state?

[Unregistered]

Research why England already made the switch and you'll understand. Having two different age cut offs is essentially screwing 7 birth months of players from developing fully and staying in soccer - particularly great male athletes who then switch to a different sport. Summer birth kids are currently the youngest & smallest in school teams and on club teams. Those potential stars don't have early success & many quit soccer. The current Aug-Dec birth month kids get to "benefit" by being the oldest in school sports and club soccer. The hidden problem it's is actually only the early developers in the group who benefit from getting to be stars by virtue of getting to play with the younger kids. The truly good players born in Aug-Dec. end up not being challenged enough on school & club teams (even if they are the best on their mostly younger team). They go to PDP/id2/RTC/ODP/US Training and suddenly they have no success because they must compete vs all the older birth year kids. It would be akin to telling an August birthdate kid they must be in 7th grade for school class year based on their birthdate but then when testing time rolls around, those same kids must take all their tests with the 8th graders because, "sorry, testing for elite students is based on birth year not August-July school year". A few birth months are favored in either system but having two different systems compounds the problem by more than 2x. Honestly, wish the one & only universal system aligned with my particular kids situation (school year) but having two different systems isn't good or right.

[Unregistered]

Research why England already made the switch and you'll understand. Having two different age cut offs is essentially screwing 7 birth months of players from developing fully and staying in soccer - particularly great male athletes who then switch to a different sport. Summer birth kids are currently the youngest & smallest in school teams and on club teams. Those potential stars don't have early success & many quit soccer. The current Aug-Dec birth month kids get to "benefit" by being the oldest in school sports and club soccer. The hidden problem it's is actually only the early developers in the group who benefit from getting to be stars by virtue of getting to play with the younger kids. The truly good players born in Aug-Dec. end up not being challenged enough on school & club teams (even if they are the best on their mostly younger team). They go to PDP/id2/RTC/ODP/US Training and suddenly they have no success because they must compete vs all the older birth year kids. It would be akin to telling an August birthdate kid they must be in 7th grade for school class year based on their birthdate but then when testing time rolls around, those same kids must take all their tests with the 8th graders because, "sorry, testing for elite students is based on birth year not August-July school year". A few birth months are favored in either system but having two different systems compounds the problem by more than 2x. Honestly, wish the one & only universal system aligned with my particular kids situation (school year) but having two different systems isn't good or right.

The "benefit" accrues only to those born in the first 3-4 months after the cutoff date, whatever date that is. Right now, the August thru Dec kids are the oldest. Change to a January date and the Jan thru April kids will benefit. It doesn't really affect the development of soccer players in general, it just moves the advantage to a different group of kids. How does that improve the level of soccer in the USA?

Research why the USA used to be on the birth year calendar and changed to school year about 25 years ago and you'll understand.

[Unregistered]

It's up to the leagues to make the changes. It'll be a mess when and if it actually happens unless they start it at just one age group (U11) and let the olders stay together until they age out. You'll be amazed at how many kids, especially girls, will stop playing soccer if they can't play with their friends anymore.

I've never seen a kid quit yet when they make a top team or elite team and their friends don't. Kids are going to be just fine. It's the crazy parents trying to live through their kids who are freaking out. Deep breaths. All will be fine either way. Let's just get on with it already!

[Unregistered]

I've never seen a kid quit yet when they make a top team or elite team and their friends don't. Kids are going to be just fine. It's the crazy parents trying to live through their kids who are freaking out. Deep breaths. All will be fine either way. Let's just get on with it already!

It's not the top teams you need to worry about. It's the other 50 or 60 teams at that age group in the state. No one has ever been able to show how changing the cut off date to January 1 will help any of the kids on the top team in Oregon, let alone the #25 team.

I've been asking this question for years, and still logical answer from anyone. Probably because changing the date will only be because someone wants to change the date. Change for change's sake. Nothing more.

[Unregistered]

It's not the top teams you need to worry about. It's the other 50 or 60 teams at that age group in the state. No one has ever been able to show how changing the cut off date to January 1 will help any of the kids on the top team in Oregon, let alone the #25 team.

I've been asking this question for years, and still logical answer from anyone. Probably because changing the date will only be because someone wants to change the date. Change for change's sake. Nothing more.

It is being done to bring the US in line with international age divisions. It is very simple. It will cause a little blip for one year, then no one will give a sh!t.

[Unregistered]

It is being done to bring the US in line with international age divisions. It is very simple. It will cause a little blip for one year, then no one will give a sh!t.

So it's not about player development then, just for administrative reasons?

How many US youth teams that aren't already on calendar year (US Nat teams) actually play in international competitions? The number is so minute that it is indistinguishable from ZERO. Again, absolutely no reason to make the change.

[Unregistered]

So it's not about player development then, just for administrative reasons?

How many US youth teams that aren't already on calendar year (US Nat teams) actually play in international competitions? The number is so minute that it is indistinguishable from ZERO. Again, absolutely no reason to make the change.

yes. this is the same logical argument you're making. it makes just as much sense to not make the change as it does to make the change. your logical argument for not changing it is, because we already have it one way (that may or may not be working).

[Unregistered]

Research why England already made the switch and you'll understand. Having two different age cut offs is essentially screwing 7 birth months of players from developing fully and staying in soccer - particularly great male athletes who then switch to a different sport. Summer birth kids are currently the youngest & smallest in school teams and on club teams. Those potential stars don't have early success & many quit soccer. The current Aug-Dec birth month kids get to "benefit" by being the oldest in school sports and club soccer. The hidden problem it's is actually only the early developers in the group who benefit from getting to be stars by virtue of getting to play with the younger kids. The truly good players born in Aug-Dec. end up not being challenged enough on school & club teams (even if they are the best on their mostly younger team). They go to PDP/id2/RTC/ODP/US Training and suddenly they have no success because they must compete vs all the older birth year kids. It would be akin to telling an August birthdate kid they must be in 7th grade for school class year based on their birthdate but then when testing time rolls around, those same kids must take all their tests with the 8th graders because, "sorry, testing for elite students is based on birth year not August-July school year". A few birth months are favored in either system but having two different systems compounds the problem by more than 2x. Honestly, wish the one & only universal system aligned with my particular kids situation (school year) but having two different systems isn't good or right.

I get so tired of hearing how the smaller less developed kids are the weakest link on a team. My kid is the smallest and is the one who has not matured(late bloomer) and she does just fine. Why do we constantly suggest they are the weak players? I don't understand that concept?

[Unregistered]

I get so tired of hearing how the smaller less developed kids are the weakest link on a team. My kid is the smallest and is the one who has not matured(late bloomer) and she does just fine. Why do we constantly suggest they are the weak players? I don't understand that concept?

Exactly.

It's more about the size of the fight in the dog not the size of the dog in the fight.

[Unregistered]

So it's not about player development then, just for administrative reasons?

How many US youth teams that aren't already on calendar year (US Nat teams) actually play in international competitions? The number is so minute that it is indistinguishable from ZERO. Again, absolutely no reason to make the change.

The number isn't zero. It is indeed small, which should give you an idea of how serious the Fed thinks your concerns are.

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that - over the time-horizon of the decades ahead - that they shouldn't make these changes. The small positives outweigh the even smaller negatives.