Birth Year Movement?

Discussion in 'Youth & HS Soccer' started by GKParent, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    If he's outside the Development Academy, yes.

    (Unless all the other organizations change their minds and phase it in the same way the DA is.)
     
  2. midsouthsoccer

    Mar 3, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    To me it sounds like you guys are at the grocery store and are waiting in line to get checked out and are mad that an empty register just opened up and blame the guy that takes his groceries there and gets checked out and now refuse to use the nice new empty and available register.
     
  3. midsouthsoccer

    Mar 3, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No he will just play with the 2002 age group.
     
  4. midsouthsoccer

    Mar 3, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Everyone is upset again because of poor reporting and a failure to spend ten minutes doing research. Here is a test, go pick any academy in England and look at their roster. And then look at their U-Designation. That will tell you it needs to be the first part of the season not the last. For example -

    http://www.evertonfc.com/players/l/lw/liam-walsh

    First-year scholar Liam Walsh is a central midfielder who is comfortable on the ball with a great range of passing and is dangerous from set-piece situations.

    He was just five years old when he joined Everton and scooped the Club’s 2013/14 Academy Goal of the Season award for a well-rehearsed strike for the Under-16s side in a fixture away at Manchester United.

    Walsh, who names Xavi as his role model, is eligible to play for both England and Italy.

    ______________

    Now do the math exercise. What is 14-97. That would be U17.

    Okay lets try again. What is 13-97. That would be u16.

    What age group is Liam listed as playing? U16.

    Try this out with any team in Europe the results are the same.

    SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    Clearly the US is not going to invent its on age group system. Everyone just needs to chill, the problem is the US soccer folks have failed to put much thought into this and suck at communicating.
     
  5. mwulf67

    mwulf67 Member+

    Sep 24, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    The implications of the OP question runs far deeper than just what U-designation that player will be…

    There is some concern and speculation that October 2002 player will not have a Fall club team to play on…

    That October ’02 player is very likely a 7th grader, to be an 8th grader next year…with the assumption that most 8th graders don’t play school ball yet. However, most kids born in 2002 (~60%) will already be freshmen in high school and playing high school soccer next Fall. This will leave this player and many like him with limited or no options to play Fall club soccer…

    And this scenario and problem repeats every year…

    Hopefully there will be some kind of solution or workaround for these kids, but so far, the powers that be who are forcing this change have yet to suggest one or even acknowledge the problem exists…
     
  6. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    I'm not sure what any of what you posted has to do with the fact that the DA is deferring implementation of the mandate until 2017 rather than following the "best practice" of implementation in 2016. You seem to be suggesting instead that the USSF had manadated the wrong thing for the long term, which I believe to be incorrect, but that's beside the point. The point is that they have decided to go against their self-proclaimed "best practice" rather than upset the apple cart, which, as I've already mentioned several times, is hypocritical.
     
    mwulf67 repped this.
  7. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    #257 dcole, Nov 4, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    This analogy completely misses the point. First of all, the people "waiting in line" in your analogy would be state associations, not regular people like us. I have no ability to switch lines once I see that the USSF is ignoring its own statement that it's a best practice to stay in your original line. Second, the timing is important, as is the fact that USSF misled the others who were waiting in line. USSF told the state associations not to switch lines. They all then declared publicly that they would not switch lines and then, after they waited in line for a couple months, USSF itself switched lines. So, yeah, you're kind of right that the state associations could declare anarchy and start switching lines, but how is that a helpful?
     
    mwulf67 repped this.
  8. midsouthsoccer

    Mar 3, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I get there are a couple of quirks like bumping kids to 11v11 to early. I was just pointing out that kids that are U-12 are not going to be playing U-15 next year even if that is the U designation. They will be playing with their age group which will mean U-15 is a younger version of itself that it is in the current system.
     
  9. midsouthsoccer

    Mar 3, 2011
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I thought the soccerwise article posted recently was finally the answer we were looking for. But I was on another message board and someone said look at the international age groups. From what I have looked at it seems like a 2006 next year should be playing U10 based on how the rest of the world does it. I am not an expert and the rest of the world academy sites and federations are as poor communicating as our own. That said, if a 20016 in Europe next year is a U10 why on earth would we make them a U11. That doesn't make any sense.
     
  10. mwulf67

    mwulf67 Member+

    Sep 24, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    #260 mwulf67, Nov 4, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    Clearly, you don’t get it…

    First you mean U13 this year, not U12….I assume that’s just a typo, however the fact you imply they are not already playing 11v11 leaves me wondering…

    Forget the damn labels for moment, the fact remains that the 2002 age group next year (whatever it’s called, although as I now, I believe it will be called U15) will be a mix of older 8th graders (likely not playing school ball) and younger HS freshmen (likely playing school ball)…this will make the constructing Fall club teams for these kids difficult to say the least…this issue/scenario will repeat every year going forward….
     
  11. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    @Beau Dure probably is better positioned to respond to this than I am, but from what I understand the answer has to do with when the seasonal year ends (as opposed to when it begins). If you were to use a Spring-Fall seasonal year, then a 2006 would be a U10 in the 2016 seasonal year. But if you use a Fall-Spring seasonal year, then a 2006 would be a U11 in the 2016-2017 seasonal year. I'm not sure how the Brits do it, but I do know that no one looks to them these days to determine the right way to do anything soccer related.
     
  12. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    #262 dcole, Nov 4, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    Thought it might help to put together a consolidated list of the flaws in the switch to birth years:

    Short-Term Problems

    1. Teams that have been together for a while are being broken up or forced to play up in a significantly higher age group. Some kids might even end up left out in the cold without a team to play on when their team implodes.

    2. Smaller clubs that have only one team per age group, or may even not have teams at all in some age groups, may not be able to combine and back fill their teams to comply with the new age groups and may end up losing large swaths of their player pool or going out of business altogether.

    3. Kids who used to be elite players due to Relative Age Effect ("RAE," which came from being born in August-December) may no longer be elite players in the new system. Many of these kids will be unceremoniously dropped from the prized "A Team" to the very "B" and "C" teams that they've looked down upon for years. These families may feel disenfranchised and leave the sport altogether rather than suffer the indignity of becoming B or C team players.

    Long-Term Problems

    1. Kids no longer play on teams organized in accordance with their school grade level. This is likely to make things less fun for the kids and may lessen interest in the sport, particularly at the critical entry point of U4-U8 recreational soccer.

    2. Kids born in the second half of the year will have to contend with both RAE and the social effects of being lumped together with kids in the grade above them, which could compound the RAE.

    3. Kids born in the second half of the year who are the oldest members of their 8th grade class will not have club teams to play on in 8th grade because the front half of their age group will be in ninth grade and playing high school soccer.

    4. Kids born in the second half of the year who are the oldest members of their 12th grade class will not have club teams to play on in 12th grade because the front half of their age group will have graduated and gone off to college.

    5. College recruiting is made far more difficult because U-designations no longer correspond to high school graduation years. A college coach watching a club game will not know which class year he/she is looking at.

    6. ODP used to serve as somewhat of a check on RAE because players born January-July who were considered non-elite because of their younger age actually had a forum in which to be on the older side of the equation with ODP teams organized by birth year. Now that both club soccer and ODP will use birth years, there is no such check on RAE and, in fact, RAE is likely to be compounded.

    *****
    Any others significant flaws that I am missing?
     
  13. g8udxk

    g8udxk New Member

    Dec 8, 2014
    Club:
    DC United
    But that is really just kicking the can down the road one year.
    Ohh boy, once this news filters out to the rank and file parents there is going to be a massive uproar. The people who pay all the bills are not going to be happy when their kids are getting aged off their current team, forced to play up a year and all the other unintended consequences of this mess. Ladies and gentleman, stock up on your popcorn because this is going to be quite a show.
     
  14. g8udxk

    g8udxk New Member

    Dec 8, 2014
    Club:
    DC United
    I think you got all the big ones.
     
    dcole repped this.
  15. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    I don't know what to make of Everton's academy. Look on their Under-18 page:
    http://www.evertonfc.com/teams/under-18s

    And you'll find this guy:
    http://www.evertonfc.com/players/m/mh/mateusz-hewelt

    He's already 19 and will turn 20 in 2016.

    So I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe you've found yet another way USSF thinks "we need to do things the way they do in Europe" that actually isn't the way they do them in Europe! Or maybe Everton's site has some outdated or incomplete information.

    Right. That's the issue.

    It's clear as day in the USSF documents I've linked from my SoccerWire pieces.
    http://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/fil...-development-initiatives-faqs-final.pdf?la=en

    Now we can add an asterisk * - except for the DA in the 2016-17 season. And that's OK because the mandates don't go into full effect until the 2017-18 season, though U.S. Youth Soccer and U.S. Club Soccer have said they'll make the birth-year switch in 2016-17. (Then the small-sided game switch will come the next year, which will mostly entail drawing a whole bunch of new lines, which will neatly coincide with whatever happens to turf fields after yesterday's E:60 report!)

    One more quick point:

    I don't see how this solves anything. The whole point is to align with some sort of international practice, and the last I checked, FIFA is currently holding the U17 World Cup, not the "1998 birth year World Cup." And Everton has U18 and U21 academy teams.
     
  16. mwulf67

    mwulf67 Member+

    Sep 24, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Yes, it is on both accounts…yet there is a certain evil, yet gut-less genius to it…not only do they get one more year to figure it all out, they also get to watch and learn in their insulated comfort as the rest of us struggle to implement their damn agenda…
     
  17. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    This is terrific. I had conversations with people who were SURE that everything would just be short-term. This shows that some are, some aren't.

    Point by point.

    For the most part, I think these problems will have solutions. It'll take patience among clubs, coaches and parents. Hey, why is everybody laughing?

    I have a little less sympathy for this, but I can add one: A lot of players are going to jump up an age group and be less competitive.

    USSF has addressed this -- clubs are not required to organize their rec leagues by birth year. I gave one example at the end of my last piece on it:
    http://www.soccerwire.com/news/club...ssue-puts-development-academy-in-a-time-warp/

    Interesting though. You're right.

    Yep. I think this can be solved, but it'll take some creativity.

    Somewhat. You have a bit of that now -- someone might be playing up, someone might have academically redshirted, etc.

    Another interesting point.

    Really good list.
     
    dcole repped this.
  18. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    The costs of the change I identified above are balanced against really only one benefit, which is the impact of the change on US youth National teams. First, it's now easier for USSF to identify players for their youth national teams. And, looking at it cynically, USSF probably doesn't care about any of the long-term problems I've identified because they all work to the benefit of the youth National teams. I think USSF actually wants a significant RAE that skews players toward the January-July birth years. This way, they end up with youth National teams with significantly older players, which helps them win on the international level. They likely justify this by concluding that anything that makes their youth National teams win games is in the best interest of the sport in this country, so the ends justify the means.
     
  19. soccermom79

    soccermom79 Member

    Mar 6, 2012
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    The age cut off for England's academy kids is actually September 1. I know this from first hand experience and was told by some parents of academy kids the only time they play by birth year is when they play international tournaments. Maybe they change to birth year at some point, but I know up through u13(and I believe higher) it is a September 1 cutoff.
     
  20. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California

    I haven't been through the entire thread so this may well have been said before, but isn't the grade issue much more grey as birthday grade dates aren't uniform throughout the country and are being pushed back in many places. For my own personal experience with the team I'm coaching this year, I've got a distribution that has 60% born in the first 5 months and 40% born in the remaining 7 months. All but one of the older kids is a grade ahead of the younger kids. Maybe I've got some odd situation, but the calendar year cutoff would be much more in line with their grades than the current use of August 1.
     
  21. mwulf67

    mwulf67 Member+

    Sep 24, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    True, there is no national standard, however most fall somewhere in that August to October range, with the mode being September (link)….I don’t know if your breakdown is typical or not, but my son’s team shows the exact opposite…a 60% younger, 40% older split, and pretty everyone is in the same grade (7th)…this change, imo, is very likely going to break this team apart…
     
  22. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    #272 dcole, Nov 4, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2015
    Looks like California uses a September cut off for school, but they moved to that cutoff in the 2014-2015 school year. I'm assuming that they were using a cutoff closer to December 31 prior to the change in 2014-2015. So it may just be that your team is older and entered school under the prior cut off. If I'm right, then your scenario (of having August-July teams with kids in two different grades) is a relic of a bygone era.
     
  23. mwulf67

    mwulf67 Member+

    Sep 24, 2014
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Yes, looks like it used to be Dec 2...
     
  24. Beau Dure

    Beau Dure Member+

    May 31, 2000
    Vienna, VA
    The current system works really well in my county, where our school cutoff date is Sept. 30. That means kids born in August and September can opt to "play up" with their classmates if their families think they're ready for it, or they opt not to play up and just accept that most of their teammates will be one year behind them in school.

    Both of my sons are September birthdays. One played up in his rec years, one still doesn't. I'm grateful I had the choice.
     
  25. blech

    blech Member+

    Jun 24, 2002
    California
    i did have it reversed. the date was moved forward, not backward. perhaps i haven't fully appreciated the arguments made on this issue since it has already been the norm for us to have even single year teams that usually bridge two grades. i follow that there will be some short term chaos in the transition, but still don't get all the longterm uproar.
     

Share This Page