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

[Unregistered]

Paying the bills does not equal making the decisions.

It does determines who will be your customer.

Just because you make an offer doesn't mean you get the player. Make the wrong offer for the families needs and they walk.

[Unregistered]

It does determines who will be your customer.

Just because you make an offer doesn't mean you get the player. Make the wrong offer for the families needs and they walk.

Some will. Not a problem. If they walk over a play up deal then they weren't worth having anyway. They can go be a cancer somewhere else.

[Unregistered]

It does determines who will be your customer.

Just because you make an offer doesn't mean you get the player. Make the wrong offer for the families needs and they walk.

It's a two way street. The club may not want the player either if they're demanding special treatment. There are many other kids who are truly interested in being on that team.

Tryout at the appropriate level, support their social and athletic development, and let the kids enjoy the sport and all the life lessons that come with it. Or, be miserable about changes and watch them quit in the near future. Either way, the rest of the kids who truly love the game will be better off.

[Unregistered]

Some will. Not a problem. If they walk over a play up deal then they weren't worth having anyway. They can go be a cancer somewhere else.

How does that make them a cancer? They may not walk, but it all depends on how well the club communicates the process and how the coach handles the situation with the player and the parents.

If talent difference is marginal then there could be a problem, but I think if a coach is smart they will be able to spin the positives in a way that makes the player and the parents happy.

Kids have different perspectives. Some do want to stay with their teammates and are short sighted to the fact that they will make new friends. Some kids may look forward to a new opportunity with new kids and coach within the club.

None of that is being a cancer.

[Unregistered]

Losing numbers, raising costs. Why are we doing this?

For the USMNT. That's pretty much it.

[Unregistered]

From what we are hearing it could be 20% or more reduction in numbers on the girls side. The easy fix of course is to raise fees. Bigger picture is that we lose some girls that might really be late bloomers. Some top natl team players were late bloomers.

So, you're saying the system should cater to the late bloomers who will choose to quit before making a few new friends? The reality is those players were never going to be considered for a national team anyways. They are likely in the 70% who will quit by age 14 and find other ways to hang out with their core group of friends.

The bigger picture really is that both the men's and women's natl teams need to get better to draw and retain more kids into the sport. The current pipeline of players isn't good enough for a country of our size. If nothing changes, then nothing will ever get better for the sport as a whole.

[Unregistered]

For the USMNT. That's pretty much it.

That's right. And it's the right thing to do. The women's side has taken soccer as far as it can in the US. If the women continue to do well, then continue on our current course. If they start doing worse, then interest in soccer in the US will wane. It is noteworthy that half of all the girls/women playing soccer in the world are playing in the US. That massive statistical advantage will probably change, which makes it likely the women will struggle more to win in the future. Not good for kids participation down the road.

However, by employing a model that works everywhere else to our massive pool of youth players we should be able to improve both the men's and women's teams. This new success will drive more participation, which drives more talent to the top as we retain our better athletes interest in soccer over other sports.

It's as simple as do nothing, and nothing will get better. Make this change and there's at least a chance we'll be significantly better off in the near future.

[Unregistered]

So, you're saying the system should cater to the late bloomers who will choose to quit before making a few new friends? The reality is those players were never going to be considered for a national team anyways. They are likely in the 70% who will quit by age 14 and find other ways to hang out with their core group of friends.

The bigger picture really is that both the men's and women's natl teams need to get better to draw and retain more kids into the sport. The current pipeline of players isn't good enough for a country of our size. If nothing changes, then nothing will ever get better for the sport as a whole.

I think you are simply twisting a few points to push your narrative that nobody is really arguing.

The question being raised here is what is the best way to insure retention in a sport through this transition period?

[Unregistered]

It's a 5 month age group shift across the board for the entire country. Not a huge deal and not the end of the world. Tryouts will be just like before but with a 5 month shift. Players will try out for their proper age groups with a few rare exceptions, just like now. The most competitive teams will be made up of true birth year players. To say a Jan-July born player is "already on the team so it's not a stretc to play up" is incorrect. The new birth year team will be made up with a majority of the Jan-Aug players from the current year OLDER team. Those kids would have to play up with and against kids up to 1and a half years older who are currently on the year older teams at their own club and all the other clubs. Totally different ball game. Those older Jan-July players also need a team so there might not be many spots for the year younger Jan-July players to all play up with them in the older birth year. And what about the younger birth year Aug-Dec kids who are actually forced to play up next year? They won't have a team if their same birth year Jan-July players all play up to stay on their team. It becomes a cluster of a domino effect if any team tries to stay together and hurts everyone else in the club. Simply won't happen. It will be business as usual with teams shifted to the new pure birth year and no one will even care a year down the road. All the same arguments and freaking out happened the year the U.S. Went to school year age groups from birth year - and it all worked out fine. Any kids who drop out of soccer because of this would have dropped out anyway.

[Unregistered]

Yes a very large number of kids play soccer to be with their friends and have fun.

We need to do it without that kind of thinking it is harmful to the US men's national team

Kids that play soccer to have fun are bad for the sport.

Kids that want to play with their friends are A nuisance for the kids who want to get better and develop.

Through the fees you pay, you fund the US men's national team salaries and travel costs so you should really defer to them in all things soccer. They are the ultimate. Anyone who does not support them needs to leave.

[Unregistered]

We know this change is bad for kids. That is of no concern.

If your precious little kid isn't willing to leave their team and go make new friends, that is a reflection of poor parenting on your behalf.

[Unregistered]

We know this change is bad for kids. That is of no concern.

If your precious little kid isn't willing to leave their team and go make new friends, that is a reflection of poor parenting on your behalf.

Exactly!!!!!

And it applies to well over 70% of Oregonian soccer families.

[Unregistered]

I think you are simply twisting a few points to push your narrative that nobody is really arguing.

The question being raised here is what is the best way to insure retention in a sport through this transition period?

A. Quality run clubs and coaching. We do not have that here in Oregon that's why the drop our rate in soccer is one of the highest in the USA.

[Unregistered]

Yes a very large number of kids play soccer to be with their friends and have fun.

We need to do it without that kind of thinking it is harmful to the US men's national team

Kids that play soccer to have fun are bad for the sport.

Kids that want to play with their friends are A nuisance for the kids who want to get better and develop.

Through the fees you pay, you fund the US men's national team salaries and travel costs so you should really defer to them in all things soccer. They are the ultimate. Anyone who does not support them needs to leave.

I've been saying all along we should have all kids recit a pledge before games of aligience to the USMNT. I'm kind of sick of people not being 105% supportive.

[Unregistered]

A. Quality run clubs and coaching. We do not have that here in Oregon that's why the drop our rate in soccer is one of the highest in the USA.

Across the nation, over 80% of the kids playing soccer are under 14. It's not just Oregon.