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

[Unregistered]

• Southampton wins quite a bit at the youth levels; are we sure that they place no emphasis on winning? Sometimes it seems some of the top-flight development programs downplay the importance of winning when they describe themselves publicly . . . begs the question do they not talk about winning because they don't have to (this is a point the Kliebert brothers make when talking about la Masia for example)?

There is massive pressure on all academy kids to COMPETE, just not massive pressure to win. Maybe that's because it's already ingrained in the culture of the club, but I think it's mostly just a feature of selection (i.e. it's hard to end up at la masia without having demonstrated an ability to compete). I think the difference between competing and "winning" is subtle, and often misunderstood. If you have a youth program that is favoring winning over the type of development you require in order to supply the first team with players, you have a problem. Which is to say: "Winning at the youth level" is not a good goal unless it aligns with those other priorities.

• Fan of pools, but how do we foster the bonds among players that can be so important to keeping players in the game particularly at the young ages? How do coaches develop an individual understanding of a player in their pool, when there is 36 that they see for only short periods of time in any given training week? Does gender play a role?

Great questions, and I'm not sure I have the answers. I do know that boys (I don't know girls at all in this context...or any other, probably) form allegiances/bonds incredibly quickly. Like-colored pinnies are usually all it takes. And, at any rate, pools just mean that a unique group might compete on any given weekend. Heck, the bonding can happen at a club-level rather than a team level.

[*]Instead of blowing up league tables, what if we put greater emphasis on league play v. tournaments? Reorient clubs towards a weekly game then move to 3 training sessions a week. That does not mean win at all cost; but directing the competitive energy towards a healthier periodization-model. [/LIST]

There may be incremental gain there, but the power of tables is pretty seductive. The GotSoccer stuff is worse, of course, but the carrot of 3 points can be harmful at the younger ages: witness coaches who lose it when a player passes (gasp!) in front of their own goal.* Plus removing the table won't affect the KIDS desire to win; that always seems to be intact, even in training where it clearly doesn't matter (to adults, that is...because it clearly matters to the kids).

*Will wait for the "but that IS wrong" guy to weigh in, but will hope against it.

[Unregistered]

One way to emphasize player development over team development is to have pools of players and form teams as required for games - with constantly changing rosters. The club that published the document linked here doesn't do that, at least not yet, but I've heard they want to follow FC Portland's lead and set up a true academy system in Vancouver. This document basically says that most of the training players receive needs to be focused on the individual with a lot less focus on the "team". Players move from team to team anyway, even without an Academy system, so much of what they are taught that is specific to their current "team" is lost when they move on.

http://www.washingtontimbers.com/doc...evelopment.pdf

[Unregistered]

One way to emphasize player development over team development is to have pools of players and form teams as required for games - with constantly changing rosters. The club that published the document linked here doesn't do that, at least not yet, but I've heard they want to follow FC Portland's lead and set up a true academy system in Vancouver. This document basically says that most of the training players receive needs to be focused on the individual with a lot less focus on the "team". Players move from team to team anyway, even without an Academy system, so much of what they are taught that is specific to their current "team" is lost when they move on.

http://www.washingtontimbers.com/doc...evelopment.pdf

That's a great doc. I think it's a real positive when organizations start to put their beliefs in writing. Great stuff.

[Unregistered]

That's a great doc. I think it's a real positive when organizations start to put their beliefs in writing. Great stuff.

It's a good start. They have the beginnings of a philosophy. What they need to publish now is their implementation plan: when and how are they going to implement this philosophy?

[Unregistered]

Hope Oregon follows Michigan's lead & gets out front of change!

Looks like it is happening effective for the Fall 2016 season. See letter from the michiganyouthsoccer.Org website

July 27, 2015
To: MSYSA League Presidents & Delegates
From: Robin Crawford, MSYSA President
Re: US Soccer Formats of Play & Calendar Birth Year Teams
Dear MSYSA League Presidents & Delegates:
Our national governing body, US Soccer, has just announced that the following formats of play are to be adopted as a best practice by August 2016 and will be mandated of all youth member organizations affiliated with US Soccer by August 2017.
U6-U8 is 4v4 (with no GK)
U9-10 is 7v7 (with GK)
U11-12 is 9v9 (with GK)
U13 and above is 11v11 (with GK)
In addition, US Soccer has announced a change in the classification of age groups from the School Year (August 1-July 31) to Calendar Birth Year (January 1-December 31). This change is to be adopted as a best practice by August 2016 and will be mandatory in August 2017 of all youth member organizations affiliated with US Soccer. However, the US Youth Soccer State Associations, including Michigan, are proceeding with implementation in 2016. Thus, commencing immediately following the Spring 2016 season, and before MSYSA’s official try-out start date of June 18, 2016, MSYSA affiliated clubs and leagues will need to transition to the small-sided games format listed above and to the Calendar Birth Year in preparation for the Fall 2016 soccer season. Teams will no longer be referred to or registered as U19, U18, U17, U16, etc. but rather by Birth Year. (E.g. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, etc.)
In the coming months, the MSYSA Board of Directors will make appropriate changes to our rules, programs, tournaments, etc. When finalized, they will be communicated to you as timely as possible. At this point, MSYSA simply wishes to relay the changes to you as quickly as possible for your planning purposes.

[Unregistered]

Looks like it is happening effective for the Fall 2016 season. See letter from the michiganyouthsoccer.Org website

July 27, 2015
To: MSYSA League Presidents & Delegates
From: Robin Crawford, MSYSA President
Re: US Soccer Formats of Play & Calendar Birth Year Teams
Dear MSYSA League Presidents & Delegates:
Our national governing body, US Soccer, has just announced that the following formats of play are to be adopted as a best practice by August 2016 and will be mandated of all youth member organizations affiliated with US Soccer by August 2017.
U6-U8 is 4v4 (with no GK)
U9-10 is 7v7 (with GK)
U11-12 is 9v9 (with GK)
U13 and above is 11v11 (with GK)
In addition, US Soccer has announced a change in the classification of age groups from the School Year (August 1-July 31) to Calendar Birth Year (January 1-December 31). This change is to be adopted as a best practice by August 2016 and will be mandatory in August 2017 of all youth member organizations affiliated with US Soccer. However, the US Youth Soccer State Associations, including Michigan, are proceeding with implementation in 2016. Thus, commencing immediately following the Spring 2016 season, and before MSYSA’s official try-out start date of June 18, 2016, MSYSA affiliated clubs and leagues will need to transition to the small-sided games format listed above and to the Calendar Birth Year in preparation for the Fall 2016 soccer season. Teams will no longer be referred to or registered as U19, U18, U17, U16, etc. but rather by Birth Year. (E.g. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, etc.)
In the coming months, the MSYSA Board of Directors will make appropriate changes to our rules, programs, tournaments, etc. When finalized, they will be communicated to you as timely as possible. At this point, MSYSA simply wishes to relay the changes to you as quickly as possible for your planning purposes.

Let's hope that the change is made by all the surrounding states at the same time...

[Unregistered]

Hope so too! Doesn't make sense to delay the inevitable. Pull the bandaid off and by this time next year everything will be settled down.

[Unregistered]

The two year phase in idea was genius though. If some clubs try to keep their teams intact to appease crazy parents, they will have to essentially play up vs full birth year teams. They will &start losing and then the parents will beg to switch to birth year also! There might be many Jan - July 31st players who sit on the bench on current mixed teams that will be happy to move "down" to the new full birth year team where they will be the oldest & maybe move to starting, etc. The kids will all be fine. It will be the parents who freak out the most.

[Unregistered]

Anyone figured out the clubs/leagues will handle the year when half of each team is in middle school and the other half is in high school? Do the middle schoolers get no fall league that year?

[Unregistered]

If they don't make it "no exceptions; no play ups" won't most teams just stay together & have some of the kids play up.? Won't this defeat the whole purpose? Wonder if it will be a zero play-ups policy for at least the first several years. Or they could be super jerks and say 1 or 2 or 3 mac can play up but that's all. Then only some of the youngers will get to stay on their teams.

[Unregistered]

When the discussion of birth year was happening last year it was only going to apply to boys. With this letter sounds like the girls will also change to birth year. Has anyone heard whether girls will be included?

[Unregistered]

Anyone figured out the clubs/leagues will handle the year when half of each team is in middle school and the other half is in high school? Do the middle schoolers get no fall league that year?

This.

How do you get around this age group?

And yes the play ups, last year when the rumors were flying that it was coming for 2015 tryouts our team had already decided they were staying together and "playing up".

[Unregistered]

This.

How do you get around this age group?

And yes the play ups, last year when the rumors were flying that it was coming for 2015 tryouts our team had already decided they were staying together and "playing up".

Is that really a team decision? Shouldn't it be a club leadership decision? Each team that "plays up" impacts other teams in the club.

[Unregistered]

One interesting fact is that US Soccer, through US Youth or US Club Soccer, can only mandate the age group change for those levels of soccer where teams could be competing in regional and/or national level competition - ie. State Cup and Presidents Cup level teams. If OYSA wanted to, they could leave the school year age cut off for lower competitive divisions and rec leagues. They won't, but they could.

[Unregistered]

The various tidbits found around the internet certainly seems to say that tryouts next spring will be for calendar year age groups for all US Youth Soccer state associations (ie. OYSA).

Shouldn't be an issue for team formation at the larger clubs that have enough kids in each age group that the re-shuffle will likely not decimate any age groups, but what about at smaller clubs that may only have 1 team per age group, or even no teams at some age groups. Playing up is always an option, if OYSA approves, but would be a tough way to go for most.