I'm wondering if there will be fewer U8 teams this coming year. Under the old system, my youngest would have been eligible for U8 by the skin of his teeth (7/22 birthdate). He would have been the youngest kid on the team, I'm sure. Then, when I thought that they were using the fall year for birth year, I thought he was ineligible. Now, he's barely past the middle of the age group. There can be kids 5 months younger than him on the team. Is that just TOO young for club soccer? I know that there U7 teams out there, but our club never had any. Our U8's practice the same amount as the older kids - 90 minutes twice a week. I'm confident my child would be fine because he's got a big brother who plays and he plays more than that now either on the side of his brother's practice when I have to take him along, or just in the backyard, but a lot of kids may be well over their head. Will U9 become the new U8?
I think U8, nationally, is already pretty rare. The DMV travel leagues generally start at U9. Pretty much every recommendation from every youth organization says we shouldn't be starting "travel" until U10 or U12, anyway. The plan I posted at SoccerWire was to phase in travel as a part-time program from U8 through U10, and then everything becomes "travel" at U11, even if you're using parent coaches and playing in a more relaxed league.
some leagues only allow so many kids playing up... ie 50% +1 of the team has to be age appropriate which the late Aug-Dec may not be the majority of a team in order to keep a team together
The birth year chart on page 9 of this presentation answers the age-group question for USSDA for the season beginning in the fall of 2016: https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/c2813mqbav1plmjtn7q66mztxeqox8vy
Does it? Why do they get to go against the USSF's own mandates? Or are they splitting the 2016-17 season into Fall 2016 and Spring 2017, with each player moving up an age group over the winter? (Yes, I'm trying to find out. I've spoken with a few people. They're trying to get me an actual answer.)
I believe it answers the question definitively, as far as USSDA is concerned. 1) This chart reconciles precisely with the trajectory of current USSDA age groups. 2) Later in the presentation, there are prescribed activities for the fall and spring portions of the season starting in the Fall of 2016.
I do not. I think it's an outdated graphic that has not taken into account that USSF has said age groups will be determined by the second half of a season, and they still refer to a "9 1/2-month season." But we'll see. That's why I'm asking.
Not sure it's outdated - this slide deck was released concurrently with the press release on 10/16. I'm indifferent to the change one way or the other. Just presenting material directly from the source. See link in article: http://www.ussoccerda.com/151016_academy-announces-u12-program-launch-fall-2016
Seems to me that there is a decent level of confusion regarding which U-designation will be allocated to each birth year, even at USSF headquarters, so I wouldn't trust any statement from any source (including USSF itself) unless that statement explicitly acknowledges the existence of the confusion and explicitly resolves the confusion. In other words, I'm not trusting any statement from any federation, association, league or club unless that statement says something like "We understand that there has been some confusion about which age group will receive which designation, and the following officially clarifies the allocations." As it stands, I believe that the right answer will end up being the year in which the seasonal year ends minus birth year equals U-designation. For example, for the Fall 2016 - Spring 2017 season, it would be 2017 minus birth year equals U-designation. Any statement that conflicts with that and does not acknowledge the existence of confusion regarding the matter is probably wrong.
Yes, I think so. Let me put it this way -- I've been in contact with people since then for my reporting, and it's pretty clear that they're confused and now cautious about what to say next.
Sorry to plug my own work, but here's the current word on the Development Academy: http://www.soccerwire.com/news/club...s-development-academy-in-a-time-warp/?loc=psw Basically, they've kicked the can down the road for a year.
What a total cop-out! USSF has no problem mandating that all of their affiliated associations, leagues and clubs pull the rug out from all of their members, breaking up teams, putting small clubs on the brink of extinction and creating stub years that leave certain kids without teams in 8th grade and 12th grade. But when confronted with screwing over one small sub-set of kids in its own Developmental Academy, USSF just can't pull the trigger and chickens out. The hypocrisy is staggering.
That is not true. No one has to do anything next year, most associates are just biting the bullet and getting it over with.
While maybe not mandated technically for 2016, they are pushing and presenting it that way…. Changes Coming to Youth Soccer in 2016 Either way you slice it, its chicken shit they can't get their own house in order, while expecting everyone else to do so in 2016...
Yes, but USSF classified moving in 2016-17 as a "best practice" compared to the 2017-18 "mandate", so naturally clubs and associations wanting to get ahead of the game would move now. Then once that gains steam, the other clubs/orgs almost have to switch in 2016-17 by default if they want to compete in regional competitions against those who've already made the switch. It's a domino effect. "Sorry, your club and teams can't play in our league or tournament because the other teams are birth year and your club is still school year."
That's not persuasive at all. They could have said "2017 is mandatory. It you want to do it in 2016, go for it, but if we were in your shoes we wouldn't do that and so we definitely can't recommend it." Instead they called it a "best practice" and implied that anyone worth a damn would do it right away. And guess what? Most are doing it in 2016-2017. But when USSF realized that their precious academy players also were going to be affected despite already using birth years, they quickly backtracked so as not to directly step on the toes of the customers they value most. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
And U.S. Youth Soccer and U.S. Club Soccer have already said they're going to birth years. There's no point in delaying it now, and I don't think there's much point in switching to "current DA" birth years for 2016-17 and then to "USSF mandate" birth years a year later, making everyone skip ahead.
They are deciding it doesn't make sense to make the switch next year. Your state association could do the same thing if they wanted. I don't see why you care what the DA does. If it does not impact you or your child so if it makes their transition easier why would it bother you?
I'm not just bothered by things when they impact me directly. Are you? I mean, poverty in India doesn't impact me at all, but I still care about it. I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy, especially coming from the high and mighty like the USSF. USSF knew full well that their change to birth year registration would have drastic impacts on tons of kids (including mine, by the way). That didn't stop them from labeling it a "best practice" to make the change in 2016. Only when they realized that impacts would be felt by their chosen sons and daughters did they themselves back away from a 2016 implementation. So, if it's a best practice to adopt the change in 2016 despite the drastic impact that it will have on children's lives, then why would a significantly lesser impact on the DA cause USSF not to adopt their self-proclaimed "best practice"? Answer: Because they are hypocrites. If USSF's hypocrisy doesn't bother you, that's fine by me. But don't ask me not to be bothered by it.
Misery loves company, I guess….Nobody seems all that thrilled by this change, yet most everyone seems committed to making this change next year (best practice and all)…everyone except the one organization most connected to US Soccer and the organization that will supposedly most benefit from this damn change….
By definition, USSF DA is supposed to exhibit best practices of US Soccer, so I agree that it does appear hypocritical and, moreover, embarrassing for US Soccer for its crown jewel to not be able to get its shit together.
That would be catastrophic, assuming the state has any teams that ever play in out-of-state tournaments. To me, having done a lot of reporting on this, I think the issue is that USSF didn't seem to be aware of the problems it was causing. I've encountered a whole lot of arrogant "How dare you question this?" from a few people. (Not, I should stress, from Dave Chesler. He was candid and reasonable.) There are clearly aspects of this that have been badly thought out and/or badly communicated. You'd think, if they were truly prepared for this, the DA would've gone ahead and announced a U18/U19 age group for 2016-17, then shifted all the age groups underneath it. But the DA had already made a big splash out of announcing the new U12 and U13 groups! So I don't think they were fully prepared on this. Just as I don't think they were fully prepared to deal with the backlash on kindergartners or the issues with high school and college.
Beau Dure, I am simply mystified by this so I want to make sure I understand properly. If a player is born in October 2002 and currently playing U13, if the new age groups are implemented for 2016/2017 that player becomes a U15 next year, thus completely missing the U14 year?