To bioband or not to bioband….that is the question

[Guest]

In all seriousness what are thoughts about biobanding in boys aged 12-15? .

[Guest]

In all seriousness what are thoughts about biobanding in boys aged 12-15? .

If done for the right reasons, then yes it's a good idea.

[Guest]

Bottom line playing time is more important than anything. If you are sitting on the bench you are not developing period!

[Guest]

If done for the right reasons, then yes it's a good idea.

Equally and possibly more important is if it's done right. That means coaches who know what they're doing and no interference or whining by parents. So, in other words, that's not happening.

[Guest]

Really only benefits the itty bittys because they aren't big enough to play with the big boys. I think it's stupid and just another way to tilt the field so the small kids can still be successful.

[Guest]

Really only benefits the itty bittys because they aren't big enough to play with the big boys. I think it's stupid and just another way to tilt the field so the small kids can still be successful.

The main issue with boys around 12-14 is that size/speed/strength differences can be massive based on who's hit puberty first. The reality is that most of that narrows significantly by 17 or 18. If you only put the biggest fastest kids on the top teams which generally have the best coaches then you are missing out on developing other kids who might very well end up being MORE athletic once they go through puberty.

[Guest]

Equally and possibly more important is if it's done right. That means coaches who know what they're doing and no interference or whining by parents. So, in other words, that's not happening.

Really it should be banded based on skill. so to your point, it won't happen and wouldn't be done right

[Guest]

Really it should be banded based on skill. so to your point, it won't happen and wouldn't be done right

So how do you control for huge size differences? A skilled big kid will dominate a equally skilled small kid.

[Guest]

In all seriousness what are thoughts about biobanding in boys aged 12-15? .

Biobanding needs to be more of a thing.

[Guest]

So how do you control for huge size differences? A skilled big kid will dominate a equally skilled small kid.

Oh well. It's just how it works here. I know BDA was doing it on a limited basis, not sure about MLS now as my son is out of that system.

The smaller kid will have to work harder at it. And look at the parents - does this kid ever have a chance at catching up physically to his same-age peers? If not then he/she needs to work with what they've got.

[Guest]

Oh well. It's just how it works here. I know BDA was doing it on a limited basis, not sure about MLS now as my son is out of that system.

The smaller kid will have to work harder at it. And look at the parents - does this kid ever have a chance at catching up physically to his same-age peers? If not then he/she needs to work with what they've got.

So are we grouping by skill or not? Being big at an earlier age isn't a skill. The goal is to have the best players when they get to 16-18, not to just win games at u12-u14. That is why bio-banding exists and that is why pro academies do it.

[Guest]

So are we grouping by skill or not? Being big at an earlier age isn't a skill. The goal is to have the best players when they get to 16-18, not to just win games at u12-u14. That is why bio-banding exists and that is why pro academies do it.

It should be called skill banding. Biobanding sounds like it's based purely on age and size. You are right size isn't a skill nor is being smaller/younger necessarily holding someone back. In fact pro academies often play their top players up at least a year to challenge them more. It's not a about their age or size but ability to keep up

[Guest]

Really only benefits the itty bittys because they aren't big enough to play with the big boys. I think it's stupid and just another way to tilt the field so the small kids can still be successful.

True, but in the long run will this really help the development of a player? or is it just another way for coaches to keep that tuition around? I mean I would rather have my kid fight his way with the big guys than be the best playing with younger kids

[Guest]

True, but in the long run will this really help the development of a player? or is it just another way for coaches to keep that tuition around? I mean I would rather have my kid fight his way with the big guys than be the best playing with younger kids

That is better for your kid's development in thr long run. And guess what, if they continue playing there's always going to be someone bigger, faster,stronger

[Guest]

It should be called skill banding. Biobanding sounds like it's based purely on age and size. You are right size isn't a skill nor is being smaller/younger necessarily holding someone back. In fact pro academies often play their top players up at least a year to challenge them more. It's not a about their age or size but ability to keep up

And almost all pro academies also have older, smaller kids playing down as well. The point is to develop kids so when the are later into their teens they are as good as possible. Winning u13 games is really irrelevant.