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

[Unregistered]

I didn't say the same school; I said the same grade! 95% of my best friends growing up we're all in my same grade, not necessarily the same school.
While some/many current older elite girls may not care who is on their team, this change effects EVERYONE from u5 from rec to elite. Only "Top Soccer" is immune. I guarantee you that the u5 and older girls from rec to Premier club B teams (and half of A teams) would prefer to play with their same grade.
Also, I bet your elite "doesn't care as long as it's the best team" kid started out playing on a team when she was little with all her classmates and that's where her love of soccer grew and she started to develop the skills to be elite now. They are taking this experience away from little girls now and my serious guess is many K-5th grade (from pre-k now for the Sept-Dec kids) little girls won't fall in love with soccer if they are never allowed to play with their friend & kids in their same grade (regardless of school). I can hear the moms now: What? Little 5yr old Suzie & Little Mia aren't allowed to play with the rest of the class? Well, that's no good... Hey, wait, I saw a sign up for lacrosse at the school that said all the little kindergarteners can all play lacrosse together and there isn't as much competition for lacrosse scholarships either! Let's all do that!"

The truth is that this isn't about playing with kids in the "same grade". The truth is that it's about playing with the "same kids". There is a fear on the part of many parents that their kid won't be in as good a situation after the change as they are now. Marginal players being bumped to lower level teams, staying on the same team but the team suddenly becoming much lower level, having to learn to play a different position than they've "always" played because they are no longer the best at that position, etc. That's what this is really all about.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. That's why August kids have always been given a free pass to play up with their grade. In the new birth year system this option is taken away from Sept-Dev kids because playing on grade would require playing down. Playing down is never allowed. Maybe they'll give waivers to Sept-Dec kids to be allowed to play down on grade if they are under some maximum height & weight limits since this is supposedly all about size!

[Unregistered]

Exactly. That's why August kids have always been given a free pass to play up with their grade. In the new birth year system this option is taken away from Sept-Dev kids because playing on grade would require playing down. Playing down is never allowed. Maybe they'll give waivers to Sept-Dec kids to be allowed to play down on grade if they are under some maximum height & weight limits since this is supposedly all about size!

There will be ZERO play-downs and a very very very small number of play-ups, except maybe at the one-hit-wonder small clubs that only have one team every 2 or 3 age groups.

[Unregistered]

The truth is that this isn't about playing with kids in the "same grade". The truth is that it's about playing with the "same kids". There is a fear on the part of many parents that their kid won't be in as good a situation after the change as they are now. Marginal players being bumped to lower level teams, staying on the same team but the team suddenly becoming much lower level, having to learn to play a different position than they've "always" played because they are no longer the best at that position, etc. That's what this is really all about.

Perhaps for the parents of older kids... This change is mandated across the board from u5 on and from rec to elite. Elementary school girls (& many boys whose fathers never played soccer) and their parents don't dive a darn about helping US Soccer get a better USMNT. The care about fun and playing with their friends to start. For all but the elite players, it stay about fun and playing with your friends. In fact a study found that 70% of US players quit soccer by 13 because they said it was no longer fun. Next year, breaking up all teams from u5 from rec to elite and telling 25% of them they can never play "down" with their friends & classmates is going to make soccer a lot less "fun" for this huge group. Non-elite and elementary school players make up a huge chunk of players and $$ that supports the elite. Wait until all those kids & parents find out. So far, only us crazy elite soccer parents know. Elite players will mostly grin and bear it but why would B & C team and rec players and especially little elementary school girls want to play soccer anymore when there are so many other sports that they can play with their friends & kids their own age/grade?

[Unregistered]

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

What about US Club Soccer/ECNL?

[Unregistered]

Maybe the real problem is the school grade cut-off date. I think you'll find that most of the other 208 FIFA countries that use Jan 1 as a cut-off for soccer also use the Jan 1 date for school.

[Unregistered]

What about US Club Soccer/ECNL?

US Club Soccer is "coordinating implementation with US Youth Soccer". Sounds like it's likely to be the same time frame. And ECNL is sanctioned by US Club Soccer.


http://usclubsoccer.org/2015/08/25/u...ent-standards/

[Unregistered]

What about US Club Soccer/ECNL?

Them too. EVERYONE. Rec & all too. Of course, they could wait until 2017 when mandated but will likely follow USYS and start 2016 too.

[Unregistered]

Them too. EVERYONE. Rec & all too. Of course, they could wait until 2017 when mandated but will likely follow USYS and start 2016 too.

Everyone is going calendar year in 2016. Some of the small sided game stuff may get delayed until 2017, but that is all.

[Unregistered]

Maybe the real problem is the school grade cut-off date. I think you'll find that most of the other 208 FIFA countries that use Jan 1 as a cut-off for soccer also use the Jan 1 date for school.

Yes. The relative age effect is arbitrary. Only gets REALLY messed up when sports & school years don't line up - particularly in the U.S. where sports are tied so closely to school and college.

[Unregistered]

There will be ZERO play-downs and a very very very small number of play-ups, except maybe at the one-hit-wonder small clubs that only have one team every 2 or 3 age groups.

i heard our club will have zero play ups the first year in order to make all the best possible teams and then address any play ups the following year on a case by case basis when there is a much better idea of how all the completely new teams settle in. Only then will they truly know where play ups might be warranted.

[Unregistered]

Perhaps for the parents of older kids... This change is mandated across the board from u5 on and from rec to elite. Elementary school girls (& many boys whose fathers never played soccer) and their parents don't dive a darn about helping US Soccer get a better USMNT. The care about fun and playing with their friends to start. For all but the elite players, it stay about fun and playing with your friends. In fact a study found that 70% of US players quit soccer by 13 because they said it was no longer fun. Next year, breaking up all teams from u5 from rec to elite and telling 25% of them they can never play "down" with their friends & classmates is going to make soccer a lot less "fun" for this huge group. Non-elite and elementary school players make up a huge chunk of players and $$ that supports the elite. Wait until all those kids & parents find out. So far, only us crazy elite soccer parents know. Elite players will mostly grin and bear it but why would B & C team and rec players and especially little elementary school girls want to play soccer anymore when there are so many other sports that they can play with their friends & kids their own age/grade?

The vast majority of kids will be fine with this. Whether you're willing to believe it or not, it will help both the men's and women's national teams and potentially better homegrown pros. Better national teams and pros will drive more participation throughout all age groups. This is the formula for every other sport you're currently able to watch on tv.

Frankly, the kids who can only enjoy the game when playing with their 1 or 2 very close friends aren't the kids any sports organization should be catering to.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;1617740]

If someone showed up tomorrow and said you had to replace your spouse and kids, you could put a positive/negative spin on it. But really most won't want to. It'd be great to get to know another spouse and kids. And adults are resilient.

Crazy comparison. Really crazy. It's soccer!

[Unregistered]

Won't the Jan-July kids start classic soccer 1 year later than they do today? Aren't current U11's a mix of 2004's and 2005's, but if we were on the calendar year right now, U11 would be 2004 only. So maybe the "improvement" is that the Jan-July kids will be one year older/bigger/stronger/smarter/more skilled when they start classic soccer and will therefore be even more dominant?

[mollautt]

Yes. The relative age effect is arbitrary. Only gets REALLY messed up when sports & school years don't line up - particularly in the U.S. where sports are tied so closely to school and college.

=>There are 2 things about these changes that do not make sense given the rationale for the changes:

1. Calendar Age: There are 2 rationales given by US Soccer for going with calendar age.

a) The first is that is aligns with the international standard. Ok, I can buy that. I am not sure given that we play so few international games in US Youth Soccer that is an important rationale (we are not in Europe where countries are small and close together so international youth games are common), but at least is a logical rationale.

b) The second rationale is it ends or curbs the relative age effect. This rationale is absurd. No doubt that under the school age system that kids born in July are going to be less developed physically than those born in August. But switching to calendar year does not change the relative age effect. It just makes January kids as dominate as August kids were and the December kids as weak as the July kids. The relative age effect is still there!

2. Move to 7v7/9v9 from 6v6/8v8: Again, there are 2 rationales given by US to going to 7v7/9v9 is it creates smaller sided games.

a) The first (and unmentioned in the press release) rationale is odd numbers make the transition to odd number full sized 11v11 soccer easier. I am not sure if that is true, but at least that has a logical basis.

b) The second and more publicized rationale given is it is a move to smaller sided soccer. This has me in more disbelief than the "relative age effect" argument. The quote from Tab Ramos, "By taking numbers away and playing 4v4, 7v7, and 9v9, you are multiplying their chances on the ball, increasing their touches and making it overall more for them by making them an active participant at all times. Fast forward 10 years and there are thousands of game situations added to a player’s development.”

For years it has been beaten into us in every coaching seminar and literature I have read that less players means more touches and skill development. But isn't 7v7/9v9 equally 2 more players on the field than in 6v6/8v8? This move is not toward small sided soccer, it is a move toward bigger sided soccer.

Maybe Tab Ramos and US Soccer is under the impression that soccer around the country has been playing 11v11 since U6 instructional leagues.

A move to smaller sided games would be 5v5/7v7 if my math is correct.

Only age group that is going smaller sided is U8 which is moving from 6v6 (5 field + 1 keeper) to 4v4 (no keeper).

***As for the other changes like the U9/U10 play back line/no punting and smaller field sizes, those makes sense to me. We want kids to play in tighter spaces. We don't want young players playing kickball and then outrun the defense. We want to force kids to play from the back and finesse the ball up the field. So I see the potential value in these changes.