01/02 girls teams

[Unregistered]

In alphabetical order:

CU ECNL 01 - not good
CU ECNL 02 - good
CFC 01 - good
CFC 02 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 01 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 02 - good
Thorns 01 - not good
Thorns 02 - good
Wash Timbers 01 - not good
Wash Timbers 02 - good

I think a lot of these teams will be forced to combine age levels due to a lack of numbers.

I think this is pretty much right except I don't think FC Portland ECNL 02 are very good.

[Unregistered]

There are so many unintended consequences to the idiotic birth year switch. One you didn't mention is that we get mixed grade teams during the peak of recruiting season. So you get a team that's half seniors (who have already made their college decisions) and half juniors (who are still looking to be recruited). The seniors are good enough to earn a roster spot but aren't interested in spending the time and money to travel to showcase tournaments to help their junior teammates get recruited. So the team either travels with only juniors (pulling from a B or younger team) or doesn't do showcase events. Either way that hurts the juniors trying to be recruited.

That being said, there IS a solution at least on the micro level. The OYSA teams could agree to all play as combined birth year teams their final year. There's no rule preventing teams from doing that. So in reality the problem is less about the admittedly stupid birth year rule and more about the outlier teams like Wa Timbers 02's, Eastside 02's, and Westside 02's - who stay as a birth year team and hang their 01 players out to dry. If those three clubs formed combined teams, and brought in their stronger 01 players on those combined teams, we would have a highly competitive league and state cup adding them to the (already combined) CFC team.

The problem with that is that, as you said, next year’s juniors won’t get the exposure they need to get recruited to college. College coaches don’t come to oysa league games. The going to be seniors are either already committed or don’t want to be so they won’t go to showcase. College coaches looking for juniors are also only really looking at u17(2003) so playing u19 is even worse for the 2002s than playing u18. Agree that ***c, Eastside & Westside aren’t helping the 01s by playing straight 02 but that is really USSF’s fault for mandating the birth year change. If the combined birth year works, the Salem 02s who’ve been playing 01 all these years would all be recruited. Maybe they are and it’s just not posted but my guess is ***c, Eastside and Westside have more recruited 02s. Don’t get me wrong, the whole birth year thing is more than stupid and forces clubs to choose which group of players they are going to dump each year.

The only way out, isn’t combining. It’s not perfect either but the best solution would be for clubs to have teams of all seniors at u19, juniors at u18, sophomores at u17, freshmen at u16. Everyone has a team and everyone is in the best recruiting situation. The only downside is half the team would be playing up like 5 months in tournaments or league games vs teams that go by birth year. That challenge might not even be a downside because that is their competition for recruiting class anyway!

[Unregistered]

There are so many unintended consequences to the idiotic birth year switch. One you didn't mention is that we get mixed grade teams during the peak of recruiting season. So you get a team that's half seniors (who have already made their college decisions) and half juniors (who are still looking to be recruited). The seniors are good enough to earn a roster spot but aren't interested in spending the time and money to travel to showcase tournaments to help their junior teammates get recruited. So the team either travels with only juniors (pulling from a B or younger team) or doesn't do showcase events. Either way that hurts the juniors trying to be recruited.

That being said, there IS a solution at least on the micro level. The OYSA teams could agree to all play as combined birth year teams their final year. There's no rule preventing teams from doing that. So in reality the problem is less about the admittedly stupid birth year rule and more about the outlier teams like Wa Timbers 02's, Eastside 02's, and Westside 02's - who stay as a birth year team and hang their 01 players out to dry. If those three clubs formed combined teams, and brought in their stronger 01 players on those combined teams, we would have a highly competitive league and state cup adding them to the (already combined) CFC team.

1. Wa timbers 02 and Eastside 02s don’t need 01s to be competitive. Wa timbers is already better than CFC 01/02 without question.

2. OYSA isn’t separated by age group last year or this year. All the best 02/01/03 teams are playing together like last year. CFC would be maybe 3rd or 4th if they played all the best teams in OYSA.

3. There is no justifiable reason to combine 01/02 at any age if the 02s are already strong.

[Unregistered]

I think this is pretty much right except I don't think FC Portland ECNL 02 are very good.

They are probably 4th - 5th best in Oregon behind WA timbers 02, CU, Eastside, maybe thorns.

[Unregistered]

1. Wa timbers 02 and Eastside 02s don’t need 01s to be competitive. Wa timbers is already better than CFC 01/02 without question.

2. OYSA isn’t separated by age group last year or this year. All the best 02/01/03 teams are playing together like last year. CFC would be maybe 3rd or 4th if they played all the best teams in OYSA.

3. There is no justifiable reason to combine 01/02 at any age if the 02s are already strong.

Agree. It’s not justifiable but it’s done at u18/19 to not have to dump the dozen 01 seniors who won’t have a team period because the rest of the 01s are off to college. Another bad consequence of forming birth year teams instead of grad year based teams. Cfc is different. Cfc just never made the change to birth year to keep only that particular team together and screwed the 01 team, weaker 02s and strong 03s teams/players years ago. The Salem 02s may have fared worse because of it but you sleep in the bed you made.

[Unregistered]

Do we still have dads on here whining about the birth year change? Give it a rest. NOBODY cares no matter how much you whine.

The birth year switch was really, really stupid. Just ignore it and move forward.

Or go cry into your pillow. Your call.

[Unregistered]

In alphabetical order:

CU ECNL 01 - not good
CU ECNL 02 - good
CFC 01 - good
CFC 02 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 01 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 02 - good
Thorns 01 - not good
Thorns 02 - good
Wash Timbers 01 - not good
Wash Timbers 02 - good

I think a lot of these teams will be forced to combine age levels due to a lack of numbers.

Washington Timbers 2002 are pretty good, but not that good. A few really good players and a bunch of pretty average players. This year they didn't do well at regionals or surf cup did they? Did they get into the finals of either? Did they win State cup?

[Unregistered]

Do we still have dads on here whining about the birth year change? Give it a rest. NOBODY cares no matter how much you whine.

The birth year switch was really, really stupid. Just ignore it and move forward.

Or go cry into your pillow. Your call.

No one cares except every club’s u18 and u19 teams that get screwed. Every club. Every year. No one is complaining. Think just pointing out reason for the combined or not combined u18 + u19 age groups. This year it’s the 01s + 02s. Next year the same fiasco will hit the remaining 02s + 03s, the next year the fiasco hits the 03s + 04s. Complaining doesn’t help but it is an unnecessary cluster.

[Unregistered]

The problem with that is that, as you said, next year’s juniors won’t get the exposure they need to get recruited to college. College coaches don’t come to oysa league games. The going to be seniors are either already committed or don’t want to be so they won’t go to showcase. College coaches looking for juniors are also only really looking at u17(2003) so playing u19 is even worse for the 2002s than playing u18. Agree that ***c, Eastside & Westside aren’t helping the 01s by playing straight 02 but that is really USSF’s fault for mandating the birth year change. If the combined birth year works, the Salem 02s who’ve been playing 01 all these years would all be recruited. Maybe they are and it’s just not posted but my guess is ***c, Eastside and Westside have more recruited 02s. Don’t get me wrong, the whole birth year thing is more than stupid and forces clubs to choose which group of players they are going to dump each year.

The only way out, isn’t combining. It’s not perfect either but the best solution would be for clubs to have teams of all seniors at u19, juniors at u18, sophomores at u17, freshmen at u16. Everyone has a team and everyone is in the best recruiting situation. The only downside is half the team would be playing up like 5 months in tournaments or league games vs teams that go by birth year. That challenge might not even be a downside because that is their competition for recruiting class anyway!

You're replying to my OP and I was not talking about OYSA - I was talking about showcase events. I am well aware that college coaches generally don't attend OYSA games.

I think you make a good point by saying that the birth year switch forces clubs to choose which groups of players to dump. For many clubs (Wa Timbers, Eastside, Westside) it's the 01's this year. For CFC, it was the 02's and 03's a few years ago. Regardless of the success of individual outlier teams like Wa Timbers 02's or CFC's 01's, it's very obvious that the club's violated what should be their primary mission - to make decisions that benefit the majority of club stakeholders. In all of these end of year cases, decisions are made that "dump" players. When those decisions are made to benefit an individual team, that is not acting in good faith. And before anyone protests, let me ask - were the decisions made uniformly, regardless of how strong or weak the resulting teams were? If not, that's a clear case of making decisions to benefit a team or coach, without regarding the overall mission of the club. (talking to you, CFC)

The reasonable thing to do would be to either communicate to fall born players as early as freshman year that we will not have a place for you senior year, or to make sure you DO have a place for them. To do otherwise is stringing along a family and a player who likely has been loyal to your club for years.

[Unregistered]

You're replying to my OP and I was not talking about OYSA - I was talking about showcase events. I am well aware that college coaches generally don't attend OYSA games.

I think you make a good point by saying that the birth year switch forces clubs to choose which groups of players to dump. For many clubs (Wa Timbers, Eastside, Westside) it's the 01's this year. For CFC, it was the 02's and 03's a few years ago. Regardless of the success of individual outlier teams like Wa Timbers 02's or CFC's 01's, it's very obvious that the club's violated what should be their primary mission - to make decisions that benefit the majority of club stakeholders. In all of these end of year cases, decisions are made that "dump" players. When those decisions are made to benefit an individual team, that is not acting in good faith. And before anyone protests, let me ask - were the decisions made uniformly, regardless of how strong or weak the resulting teams were? If not, that's a clear case of making decisions to benefit a team or coach, without regarding the overall mission of the club. (talking to you, CFC)

The reasonable thing to do would be to either communicate to fall born players as early as freshman year that we will not have a place for you senior year, or to make sure you DO have a place for them. To do otherwise is stringing along a family and a player who likely has been loyal to your club for years.

The WaTimbers 02s and Capitol 01s girls have both been very successful. Both have gotten an huge amount of high level experience. Not sure why you keep bringing them up like it's bad. Both will have 5-10 girls recruited. Both teams cores are mostly 02 from what I can tell.

[Unregistered]

You're replying to my OP and I was not talking about OYSA - I was talking about showcase events. I am well aware that college coaches generally don't attend OYSA games.

I think you make a good point by saying that the birth year switch forces clubs to choose which groups of players to dump. For many clubs (Wa Timbers, Eastside, Westside) it's the 01's this year. For CFC, it was the 02's and 03's a few years ago. Regardless of the success of individual outlier teams like Wa Timbers 02's or CFC's 01's, it's very obvious that the club's violated what should be their primary mission - to make decisions that benefit the majority of club stakeholders. In all of these end of year cases, decisions are made that "dump" players. When those decisions are made to benefit an individual team, that is not acting in good faith. And before anyone protests, let me ask - were the decisions made uniformly, regardless of how strong or weak the resulting teams were? If not, that's a clear case of making decisions to benefit a team or coach, without regarding the overall mission of the club. (talking to you, CFC)

The reasonable thing to do would be to either communicate to fall born players as early as freshman year that we will not have a place for you senior year, or to make sure you DO have a place for them. To do otherwise is stringing along a family and a player who likely has been loyal to your club for years.

3years ago at the birth year switch, I recall Eastside, Westside & ***C all switching ALL teams over to the new way, including the then 02/01 very strong team. The idea was that it wasn’t going to get any easier years down the road so rip the bandaid off and start building the new teams. For whatever random reason, the 2002 girls across Oregon are as a group much stronger than the 2001s. Maybe that’s one reason Salem stayed together and played together. No competition at 2001 guaranteed State champs and a trip to regionals every year. However, it left ***c with dominance at 2002...AND ***c 02 got to play in regionals, NW Champions/Far West leagues and tourneys against 2002s. Much easier in State for Salem but much harder out of state having to compete against the older 2001s of CA and all. I bet that backfired for college recruiting but maybe not. A poster said all but 4 of ***c02 are committed. Where’s the list? How many from Salem01? If not many, then even though the Salem 01 team was given extra special treatment to stay together, it might not have been the best for the girls on that team either. They didn’t get dumped like whole other players/teams and got to remain with their friends but at what cost down the line? Salem people? Happy?

[Unregistered]

The WaTimbers 02s and Capitol 01s girls have both been very successful. Both have gotten an huge amount of high level experience. Not sure why you keep bringing them up like it's bad. Both will have 5-10 girls recruited. Both teams cores are mostly 02 from what I can tell.

5-10 recruits is actually pretty good. I don't get all the complaining.

[Unregistered]

Ok, we get it. Dad is mad that daughter got left off a WashT or Salem team and is complaining about the birth year switch.

Complaining here is not going to help. Neither is stomping your feet.

Move along.

[Unregistered]

In alphabetical order:

CU ECNL 01 - not good
CU ECNL 02 - good
CFC 01 - good
CFC 02 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 01 - not good
FC Portland ECNL 02 - not good
Thorns 01 - not good
Thorns 02 - good
Wash Timbers 01 - not good
Wash Timbers 02 - good

I think a lot of these teams will be forced to combine age levels due to a lack of numbers.

Did the Thorns pick up any new players at the older age levels?

[Unregistered]

Do we still have dads on here whining about the birth year change? Give it a rest. NOBODY cares no matter how much you whine.

The birth year switch was really, really stupid. Just ignore it and move forward.

Or go cry into your pillow. Your call.

Back off. When a soccer dad sheds a tear, alone in his room, an angel gets it's wings.

So leave him be. Tears can be a good thing.