Just supposing they really thought it through, maybe that was precisely what they were trying to avoid. With the early development being mixed birth-year, some of the middle kids might have been left behind in development where the kids they were playing with might have been a older birth year. For instance, my 03 son was playing on a 02-03 team and was one of the top few on the team but when they went birth year, he was by far the best 03 (and the oldest). If those younger teams are feeding the DA system which in turn feeds the National Teams, then I guess it makes it easier for identification at earlier ages.
Except....it kinda does. A Q1/Q2 elite player under the old system would spend his entire club career playing against kids that are 3 quarters older, or up to 7 quarters if they played a year up. That's a lot of soccer being played against opponents who are bigger, stronger and faster. Thats routinely playing against kids that are up to 21 months older. This forces them to think faster and play smarter, quicker soccer. Now when these kids play up, the most they're doing is playing against someone 5 quarters older. Really big difference, particularly at the younger ages where 6 months means a lot. I wonder, honestly, if this move that was really done with an eye to the elite of our elite (the .001% of our players that are actually in the YNT picture) will actually ends up being slightly detrimental to their development. Which would be kinda awesome, given how little thought US soccer really put into this(beyond “this is how the rest of the world does it”)
If, halfway through the school year, a school did the following: Older 6th graders and younger 7th graders are now in the same class. They will use the 7th grade curriculum. The 6th graders that missed the second half of the school year will just have to figure it out. Which group do you think will struggle in the new 7th grade?
I don’t think anyone is saying there won’t be struggles or challenges…in some cases. But using your analogy, would you say those 6th graders are doomed to never catch up? To never excel or find success in High School or go onto college?
By the all of them? No. But I wouldn’t be surprised if “plenty” of them had an issue...which is exactly what @Beau Dure stated. Now we can certainly argue the definition of plenty. I’m sure he could quantify it for us. But the overall point is that it would be more than 1, for no apparent benefit.
Sorry, I'm not following. DS is a Q3 2003 player. On the "old" system, he was one of the oldest kids on his team. He could have played with a Q3 2004 player. Since he played "up", he was also playing with some 2002 players. On the birth year system, now he plays with a Q1 2003 player and no 2004 players. If he plays up, he can be playing with 2002s. No matter which system you use, kids can be playing with others who are 11 months older (or younger). The only change is which kids are affected. Maybe you went from being one of the oldest to one of the youngest on the team. Like I said, no difference (in the big picture).
I don't think you can compare it to school. What skills are being learned at U11 that you need to play at U12? That's what school grades do. What you learn in 6th grade is NEEDED in 7th grade. Also, your premise of something happening halfway through the school year is wrong. The birth year change happened at the start of the season. So if you want to go that route, what if, at the end of a child's 6th grade year, the school said "you're going to take an 8th grade class next year"? The child (and parents) have time to find out the basics and be ready to go in the fall. You also never answered what a soccer player is missing out on if they "lose" one year. And what about those players who don't even start until U11 (or later)? Should they just give up? After all, look at all the years they didn't play.
While agreeing with the no apparent benefit comment, I just can’t/don’t share the pessimistic view that these kids as totally screwed as you and other my think…. Development is a marathon not a sprint…and as such, bumps in the road, for whatever reason, happen all the time along the way….and in the end, they don’t amount to much…kids persevere, they overcome, they catch up… Wherever trajectory kid was on before this change, I struggle to believe this change has really altered it…
I was taking about Q1/Q2 players....which make up the overwhelming majority of YNT players, because they benefit from the RAE effect for birth years.
The ones who would have miss one year of small sided soccer aren't even in HS yet. The late 04s would have been playing on the big field anyways and they are in 7th grade. The early 05s got an extra year of small field size by playing u12 twice.,
The biggest issue I had with the change is, here in MN tryouts are typically held in July, for the following year. So my Sept. bday child at U11 years will still be 10, while playing his whole U11 season, and will try out for U12 as a 10 year old. Fortunately he has the talent, desire, drive so this does not affect him, but I could see kids getting lost in the shuffle.
Wouldn't he be turning 11 at the start of the U12 season? Why does the age at tryouts matter? He'd be trying out with other kids the same age.
Lost how? It’s still a 12-month grouping of kids…if anything, the whole “U” naming convention needs to go bye-bye….
The late 05s went from small field 6v6, to medium field 9v9, to full field 11v11. The progression should have been 2 years at 9v9. I think there will be less of an effect on the kids that would have been u8 that jumped into u10 in 2015/16 season. It's the field dimensions. There are kids who are 11 right now playing U13. Not playing up, their birthdays are Nov/Dec of 2005. They get a through ball just inside midfield, they aren't equipped for the 50 yard sprint to get a shot. On the 9v9 field they would have been on before the change, it's a 30 yard run. Average u13s tended to struggle fall season to get corners in, when u13s contained kids who were actually 13 at the start of fall or at a minimum by the middle of next summer. I'd love to believe that USSF was so on the ball that they did this so that everyone that didn't have 1Q born players would learn to build up through the 3rds like Napoli, play short corners etc...but I have my reservations. It's not dire, but a lot of it is going to come down to coaching, and as someone working in the sand that you walk across before you enter the development pyramid I'm not encouraged 1 year in.
If you think about it "U13" means UNDER 13. So they should be no older than 12. Kids born in Nov/Dec of 2005 are 11, but they'll be 12 in a month and a half. Were you as concerned about the kids born in July/August under the old system? They would have had the exact same issue. Around here, 11 year olds can be in 6th grade and therefore playing middle school (6th-8th grade) ball. MS uses a full sided field. Should 6th graders not be allowed to play because "they aren't equipped for the 50 yard spring to get a shot"? Heck, some teams even allow 5th graders to play.
Working backwards - yes, from what I've seen MS soccer isn't great developmentally. I'd rather see them play 9v9 on 80X50 yard fields. Also a lot of the MS soccer here was 11v11 on smaller fields, so it was some combination of pinball and rugby. The old cutoff was Aug 1, I had son born in mid August, and a son born the last week of July, so yes, I was familiar with relative age effect before 2016. When my oldest turned 13, he was playing u13. When my youngest turned 13, he was 6 weeks out of his last u13 game. U13 used to mean "13 and under". It now means "13 by the end of the following fall season". My concern isn't so much with the relative age effect, since we exist in a universe with time we will always have it My concern is that they changed the criteria that determined the age groups, but didn't reconcile that with their previously published guidelines about what was appropriate by age. What used to be good for u10, when it contained 10/9 year olds, might not be good for u10 when it contains 9/8 year olds, who are trying out at 7 - which under the previous guidelines was determined to be way too young for tryouts. If heading was bad at u12 under the old system, that is, any kid who was 12 shouldn't head the ball that rule should have slid up to all u13 fall seasons going forward, as every u13 this fall was 12 years old at most. It didn't. Long term this isn't going to affect the elite players, or even the players that spend a college tuition in club fees trying to get a free college tuition. But for a country that wants to build a broad base, they could have done better.
My daughter is a late 05. They played 3 years as u11-u12 which was 9v9 Twice as a school age 11 and 12 and once as a birth year 12. This year as a 13 she is 11 v 11. And this is our leagues rules http://iwsl.com/myimages/Fall2017Fees.pdf
Not true at all- - Season runs basically end of April to beginning to around July 17 here in MN- so any kids born Q1 will play season at age 11- From Arpil to July- they will turn 11 during season- Anyone after August 1st will still be 10 and tryout for u12 as a 10 year old- We have 4 kids that fall into the 3rd group- 6 that are in the first group and 2 that turn 11 in season. I like to think of it as my child playing up, even though he is technically playing at age, but this is the reason we have never considered playing him up another level.
Is it bad that when my wife brought up starting a family in the fall of 2004, I explained the relative age effect and told her to stay away from me until late spring early summer? April 06....but was shooting for January.
So they tryout for U12 as 10 year olds, but by the time they play, they will be 11. Since they're trying out with other kids the same age, I don't see what that has to do with anything. We have two seasons here... Mid-August through October (maybe sneak into November) and Mid March through May. That's for U14 & Below. U15 goes from November-December, then Mid March through May. That's because school soccer is a fall sport and most on club teams play on the HS teams.
That's a good point. But I don't blame that on the birth year change, but not changing other rules to reflect the birth year.
I do think they should do away with all the 'U' designations. There's no reason to reference U15 anymore, call them the 03s. U8 should be 10s.
I kind of agree. I think the only reason to keep it would be to give a quick relative age of the player without having to do the math in your head.
So it looks like at least the birth year mandate has reconciled all the states that had slightly different age group cutoffs before Moving on, my district is looking at a fall 9v9 season for u13s. Within my club we're encouraging rising u9s to stay with inhouse. I'm sure people will adjust, like they've always done...