|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jul 31, 2015 10:40:09 GMT -5
If the switch to Calendar year occurs next fall, who would be the rising "U13s, ie first year of classic or Athena A"
Would it be the 2003s or the 2004s?
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Jul 31, 2015 13:16:41 GMT -5
If the switch to Calendar year occurs next fall, who would be the rising "U13s, ie first year of classic or Athena A" Would it be the 2003s or the 2004s? A great question.I don't know, but I see this article that says U18 is 1998. www.ussoccer.com/stories/2015/04/16/16/38/150416-u18-wnt-otc-camp-roster-relThe kids born Jan-Aug 1998 should be seniors in high school this year. So, working off that, I would say that "U13" this year translates to 2003. So next year "U13" would be 2004. That's my guess seeing as the whole reason for doing this is to be aligned w/ DA and the rest of the world. And maybe classic will add another to the U18 group to include the old high school seniors born Sept-Dec in the prior year. But doesn't look like ODP or DA has anything for those kids.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Aug 3, 2015 22:39:35 GMT -5
No. My kid was born in 2000. She's 15 and sophomore in high school. Calendar year 2000s are sophomores up untilSept 1 cut off for schools. Any Sept/Dec 2000 kids are freshmen.
Over half her current club team has 1999 birthdays. If this rule is a cold turkey deal U14 and above will be adversely affected due to massive team disruption.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 4, 2015 6:55:16 GMT -5
If the switch to Calendar year occurs next fall, who would be the rising "U13s, ie first year of classic or Athena A" Would it be the 2003s or the 2004s? For this year, age groups would be: U18 - 97s U17 - 98s U16 - 99s U15 - 00s U14 - 01s U13 - 02s U12 - 03s So for next year, age everyone up a division. This doesn't look right to me. My understanding is the 04s this year would be U12, so next year they will be the U13s. That is how other sports work. Of course it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find soccer doing something different. Do you have a reference?
|
|
|
Post by setpieces on Aug 4, 2015 7:55:59 GMT -5
It will start for next year. So teams will be disrupted next season. There is no talk of a phased implementation. Will mean a lot of shuffling in the pecking order at a lot of age groups I imagine. Funny thing is that ECNL is not changing. So ECNL clubs will have an interesting job managing the different age groups. Sort of a reverse of the headache DA clubs have had working with the two different systems the past few years. So if a coach wanted to keep some continuity with his team would he just consider the players in the younger year "play ups" or will that be allowed? My son is currently considered a play up at U11 but he was actually born in late August of 2005. I guess he would no longer be considered a play up, but would his team mates born in 2004 be considered U12 right now?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2015 9:17:35 GMT -5
It will start for next year. So teams will be disrupted next season. There is no talk of a phased implementation. Will mean a lot of shuffling in the pecking order at a lot of age groups I imagine. Funny thing is that ECNL is not changing. So ECNL clubs will have an interesting job managing the different age groups. Sort of a reverse of the headache DA clubs have had working with the two different systems the past few years. Wow, not sure how that is going to fly! I thought I read US Club soccer would make the change also. That would be logistic nightmare for ECNL clubs etc. Remember the rumor is DA for girls is coming, Still haven't heard a start year from any valid sources though.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2015 9:38:11 GMT -5
So in summary is it:
For this year, age groups would be:
U18 - 97s U17 - 98s U16 - 99s U15 - 00s U14 - 01s U13 - 02s U12 - 03s
or
For this year, age groups would be:
U18 - 98s U17 - 99s U16 - 00s U15 - 01s U14 - 02s U13 - 03s U12 - 04s
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Aug 4, 2015 9:50:56 GMT -5
So in summary is it: For this year, age groups would be: U18 - 97s U17 - 98s U16 - 99s U15 - 00s U14 - 01s U13 - 02s U12 - 03s orFor this year, age groups would be: U18 - 98s U17 - 99s U16 - 00s U15 - 01s U14 - 02s U13 - 03s U12 - 04s The second scenario would be accurate. Example A kid born in 2000 would be 15 this year in 2015. That puts the kid in the U 16 ( under 16) age group for the calendar year 2015 - whether born Jan 1 2000 or Dec 31 2000. I don't like this change at all
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2015 9:55:15 GMT -5
Did RPL exist when the switch occurred last time from calendar year to school age? This will really throw a wrench in the clubs that have a situation where for example the current situation is like this, all of a sudden a handful of girls will not be able to play RPL, yes playing up is an option etc, but would be best to leave the u13+ alone.
u13 - athena b u14 - rpl u15 - athena a/b/c
|
|
|
Post by 4theloveofsoccer on Aug 4, 2015 10:50:12 GMT -5
At the moment and past, one thing I do not understand is how and why clubs/teams list their teams. Reason asking is because many if not most clubs list their teams as ex: XYZ "99" Elite, while only a few clubs list their teams as XYZ "98/99" Elite. Georgia soccer follows the "school year" correct? Why name your team properly?
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Aug 4, 2015 11:16:34 GMT -5
It will start for next year. So teams will be disrupted next season. There is no talk of a phased implementation. Will mean a lot of shuffling in the pecking order at a lot of age groups I imagine. Funny thing is that ECNL is not changing. So ECNL clubs will have an interesting job managing the different age groups. Sort of a reverse of the headache DA clubs have had working with the two different systems the past few years. The calendar year mandate was passed by USSF. Both USYSA (your state associations, NL, RPL) and US Club Soccer (ECNL, NPL) are under the USSF umbrella. Both organizations will need to be in compliance if they remain under USSF. Unless ECNL gets some kind of special exemption, which seems highly unlikely, how could they opt out? US Club ID programs already use calendar year, just like USYSA programs. Admittedly I do not have inside information. Only have a modest ability to try and apply logic to perhaps illogical situations.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2015 12:32:11 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Aug 4, 2015 13:29:28 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Oh good old Wazoo, always ahead of everybody else. I'm glad they are trying to get a head start on this so you can get the kinks out earlier then at the deadline. This is going to be a great thing for the U.S. game and development as long you keep looking at the positive and not all the negative. Remember change is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 4, 2015 14:07:37 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Frankly I do not care too much about the change, my kids run the gambit. I thought the old system was fair, in that some kids got to be the oldest for awhile before the other half of kids got to be the oldest when they got to ODP/DA. With that said, development is not irrelevant to age cut offs and is on full display through most sports including soccer. On average - the oldest in the age group are more mature, pick up concepts more quickly at a younger age, are more physically gifted, are faster and quick to the ball, more touches on the ball, have more strength than their relative peers in the same year. Take Johnny at your local Atlanta Club with a March birthday and plays on his top Academy team. While he gets a great experience and has fun there are other boys on the team who are "better" and get to play central mid field or offense almost the entire game. Well if Johnny is playing in the Calendar year he is going to fall into the most mature group and get the prime touches, more game time, etc. I don't really fault the coaches, I am not sure how you can expect them to build in a "handicap" system that discounts age.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 4, 2015 14:12:56 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Frankly I do not care too much about the change, my kids run the gambit. I thought the old system was fair, in that some kids got to be the oldest for awhile before the other half of kids got to be the oldest when they got to ODP/DA. With that said, development is not irrelevant to age cut offs and is on full display through most sports including soccer. On average - the oldest in the age group are more mature, pick up concepts more quickly at a younger age, are more physically gifted, are faster and quick to the ball, more touches on the ball, have more strength than their relative peers in the same year. Take Johnny at your local Atlanta Club with a March birthday and plays on his top Academy team. While he gets a great experience and has fun there are other boys on the team who are "better" and get to play central mid field or offense almost the entire game. Well if Johnny is playing in the Calendar year he is going to fall into the most mature group and get the prime touches, more game time, etc. I don't really fault the coaches, I am not sure how you can expect them to build in a "handicap" system that discounts age. yes, that makes sense, but now the same will be true of the aug-dec birthdays who will be the youngest and now not get the opportunities you describe Either way, its the same thing, just impacts different kids etc. Thats the only point I was trying to make. I think your raising another issue though, too often than not, I see coaches constantly say, they don't care about winning etc etc etc, but then for example on an 8v8 side, 5 of the kids never come out of the game and the others are rotated and more likely than not kids are locked into positions at u10.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 4, 2015 15:10:01 GMT -5
Frankly I do not care too much about the change, my kids run the gambit. I thought the old system was fair, in that some kids got to be the oldest for awhile before the other half of kids got to be the oldest when they got to ODP/DA. With that said, development is not irrelevant to age cut offs and is on full display through most sports including soccer. On average - the oldest in the age group are more mature, pick up concepts more quickly at a younger age, are more physically gifted, are faster and quick to the ball, more touches on the ball, have more strength than their relative peers in the same year. Take Johnny at your local Atlanta Club with a March birthday and plays on his top Academy team. While he gets a great experience and has fun there are other boys on the team who are "better" and get to play central mid field or offense almost the entire game. Well if Johnny is playing in the Calendar year he is going to fall into the most mature group and get the prime touches, more game time, etc. I don't really fault the coaches, I am not sure how you can expect them to build in a "handicap" system that discounts age. yes, that makes sense, but now the same will be true of the aug-dec birthdays who will be the youngest and now not get the opportunities you describe Either way, its the same thing, just impacts different kids etc. Thats the only point I was trying to make. I think your raising another issue though, too often than not, I see coaches constantly say, they don't care about winning etc etc etc, but then for example on an 8v8 side, 5 of the kids never come out of the game and the others are rotated and more likely than not kids are locked into positions at u10. You are right about the what coaches say versus what coaches do. I believe they really do mean what they say about not caring about winning but for goodness sake, Billy does not always need to play center midfield ever single game if we are about development (especially if he has a aug-oct birthday). Why is Frank always at right wing, put him at right back! If you tell me your club is about winning I would understand, but it is one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 4, 2015 19:32:06 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Oh good old Wazoo, always ahead of everybody else. I'm glad they are trying to get a head start on this so you can get the kinks out earlier then at the deadline. This is going to be a great thing for the U.S. game and development as long you keep looking at the positive and not all the negative. Remember change is a good thing. How will changing an arbitrary age cutoff help the US game and/or development? This seems a bookkeeping exercise for the sake of constency. What will the Jan 1 cutoff give us that we don't have today?
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 4, 2015 19:52:52 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Yeah, their answers are weak for me. I do see how you can look at it as an opportunity for the Aug-Dec kids to play up. When they get to high school they should be well ahead of the majority of kids in their grade. They will have a very hard time making ODP or DA, but they will be in prime position for high school ball.
|
|
|
Post by parentsoccerfan on Aug 4, 2015 20:45:07 GMT -5
From Pugent sound which looks like made the switch for this coming season: www.pugetsoundpremierleague.com/NPL/862067.htmlOther than aligning with international standards, not sure I agree with some of these answers. However you slice it you will always have younger and older players in an age group. Development should be irrelevant to age cut offs. Yeah, their answers are weak for me. I do see how you can look at it as an opportunity for the Aug-Dec kids to play up. When they get to high school they should be well ahead of the majority of kids in their grade. They will have a very hard time making ODP or DA, but they will be in prime position for high school ball. While I understand the realities of younger kids born Aug-Dec having trouble making ODP and DA, it frustrates me that essentially one-half of an age group is written off before the age of 11. Unfortunately, this change hits my late-fall kid right at this time so I guess he is doomed to focus solely on high school ball now
|
|
|
Post by lowden587 on Aug 4, 2015 22:56:48 GMT -5
This really makes NO sense to me. You have kids that have been playing together since U8 and now since Johnny has a January birthday and Billy has a November birthday Johnny is playing U15 and Billy is playing U14. "Sorry kids, this is DEFINITELY the best thing for you, we adults know best! How will you ever be able to play in that international friendly with Chile when your ages don't match up? What's that you say? Only .000001 percent of kid soccer players are going to play internationally so why break up your team and screw everything up for high school? Hmmmmmm. Do realize how easy it is to write Club '99 instead of Club '99/'00? You kids just don't see the big picture!"
Morons! Ga Soccer that is.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Aug 4, 2015 23:16:57 GMT -5
This really makes NO sense to me. You have kids that have been playing together since U8 and now since Johnny has a January birthday and Billy has a November birthday Johnny is playing U15 and Billy is playing U14. "Sorry kids, this is DEFINITELY the best thing for you, we adults know best! How will you ever be able to play in that international friendly with Chile when your ages don't match up? What's that you say? Only .000001 percent of kid soccer players are going to play internationally so why break up your team and screw everything up for high school? Hmmmmmm. Do realize how easy it is to write Club '99 instead of Club '99/'00? You kids just don't see the big picture!" Morons! Ga Soccer that is. Wow,.it's not all about lil Johnny and billy. Everyone else in the world does years instead of this crazy "school year" that changes for every little county in the country. Think globally, not locally. Plus High school sports will be gone in 10-15 years so why dictate high school rules for all ages?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 5, 2015 6:38:36 GMT -5
Come on folks -- no name calling here. Let's be adults please.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 5, 2015 6:57:41 GMT -5
I think people would accept this better if it were just honestly presented for what it is -- an accounting exercise to become consistent with an arbitrary age cutoff. It's not about development. Spewing that nonsense is insulting.
That would be a sad day if high school sports were replaced with the typical dysfunctional club sport organization.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 5, 2015 7:08:06 GMT -5
How will changing an arbitrary age cutoff help the US game and/or development? This seems a bookkeeping exercise for the sake of constency. What will the Jan 1 cutoff give us that we don't have today? Here's a reason: If your team plays an international event, you will be on level ground age wise. If the pinnacle of the sport is on one (international) standard, it makes more sense to align with that standard. I don't care either way. Soccer has progressed to the point where you can make a team of willing players every day of the week. Friends can still be friends.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 5, 2015 8:13:29 GMT -5
I can see why aligning with international standards is important, but not a necessity. (ie feet/inches vs meters/cm).
I think the current system was and could have adapted well. DA/ODP are both calendar year for your top players. Everyone else could remain status quo as is and top players would gravitate towards the upper tier. Coaches here I assume will now embrace MLS Atlanta more than the other DAs, and encourage their top players to go to Atlanta United FC. DA should add U13, U15, and u17 groups. (I heard a potential rumor about adding u13). The youth national teams should enlarge their invited player pools to team camps and shuffle players around more to ensure your seeing all the top talent. ECNL and DA should have events that are combined players across their clubs, ie u14-u18s for example, (maybe split it in half etc). ECNL could then make the decision whats in the best interest of the girls playing, which is probably to remain on a academic aug to aug year and align with academics since college soccer is the path for womens soccer.
I'll end with this, these MLS/DA academies better start putting an emphasis on education as well, because just like everything else, its not easy out there. The path for the above average player isn't an easy one, and for the vast majority of the players on the boys side, the path in the U.S. is still college college and college. School year/ calendar year / or some new 18 month variety its all the same, just keep an open eye out for the younger players and focus on education. If i'm not mistaken the majority of the DA teams are made up of the older crop in each age group. Go watch the youngest ODP age group this September, 95% of the best players will be the older half of kids with Jan - June birthdays --- they are bigger, stronger, faster and more experiences from a physicality side.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Aug 5, 2015 8:23:59 GMT -5
This really makes NO sense to me. You have kids that have been playing together since U8 and now since Johnny has a January birthday and Billy has a November birthday Johnny is playing U15 and Billy is playing U14. "Sorry kids, this is DEFINITELY the best thing for you, we adults know best! How will you ever be able to play in that international friendly with Chile when your ages don't match up? What's that you say? Only .000001 percent of kid soccer players are going to play internationally so why break up your team and screw everything up for high school? Hmmmmmm. Do realize how easy it is to write Club '99 instead of Club '99/'00? You kids just don't see the big picture!" Morons! Ga Soccer that is. First, this is not Georgia Soccer's fault. This mandate comes from higher up the chain of command. Second, flexibility is not a bad thing. Being able to work with different people as a result of changes in colleagues, be it in either sports or business, is an important skill to develop. Third, kids are obviously way more flexible than some parents. Fourth, every change has associated pluses and minuses. There is no need to waste energy on something like this. Kids still get to play soccer. Parents still get to enjoy watching their kids play soccer. Finally, this was an unfortunate way to begin your posting career. But I suppose this means there is ample room for improvement.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 5, 2015 10:48:50 GMT -5
I'm afraid I'm equally frustrated with the decision to just do this "cold turkey". While I can see the VERY minor advantage of aligning to the rest of the world for international competition, I struggle to see any other way this is better. It is simply different. Different is not better just because it is different.
Some of these kids have been playing together for 8 years, and they are nearing the twilight of their soccer "careers". We all know the number of kids who will go on to play in college, pro, or international is essentially zero. Most of these kids, especially the ones in the Athena/Classic system, are playing for fun and to be with their friends -- many of whom attend different schools.
I can't see any compelling reason to have this change affect older kids, other than it makes it easier to just switch everyone at once. From a soccer standpoint, who cares. From a human standpoint, it actually does matter.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Aug 5, 2015 11:02:06 GMT -5
From that page.... I'm sorry but this is quite seriously nothing more than handwaving. We've always had age groups that include one full year of ages. Kids could always play UP but could never play DOWN based on the cutoffs. Seriously, other than aligning with the international "standard" (moving target), absolutely nothing is changing. I'll quote an excerpt: "The “Calendar Year” runs from August 1st to July 31st, and it allows older players to play down with younger players. For example, under calendar year, if you are born between August 1st and December 31st of 1999 you can play down in the same age group with any younger players born from January 1st to July 31st of 2000." I could write this for the new system. "The “Birth Year” runs from January 1st to December 31st, and it allows older players to play down with younger players. For example, under birth year, if you are born between January 1st and May 31st of 1999 you can play down in the same age group with any younger players born from June 1st to December 31st of 1999." What is the difference, other than where we draw the line? The grouping always includes kids that are within one year from youngest to oldest, excepting playups, which happen with either setup. Seriously, anyone that could write that with a straight face is either ignorant or willingly trying to mislead people.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 5, 2015 11:49:08 GMT -5
From that page.... I'm sorry but this is quite seriously nothing more than handwaving. We've always had age groups that include one full year of ages. Kids could always play UP but could never play DOWN based on the cutoffs. Seriously, other than aligning with the international "standard" (moving target), absolutely nothing is changing. I'll quote an excerpt: "The “Calendar Year” runs from August 1st to July 31st, and it allows older players to play down with younger players. For example, under calendar year, if you are born between August 1st and December 31st of 1999 you can play down in the same age group with any younger players born from January 1st to July 31st of 2000." I could write this for the new system. "The “Birth Year” runs from January 1st to December 31st, and it allows older players to play down with younger players. For example, under birth year, if you are born between January 1st and May 31st of 1999 you can play down in the same age group with any younger players born from June 1st to December 31st of 1999." What is the difference, other than where we draw the line? The grouping always includes kids that are within one year from youngest to oldest, excepting playups, which happen with either setup. Seriously, anyone that could write that with a straight face is either ignorant or willingly trying to mislead people. Jash you are 100% correct. As I said on another thread for my family I do not really care that much about the switch, although it will benefit my kids more than hurt. But if I was being honest then for 95% of the kids playing soccer the current system is the most logical in that kids play sports with the kids in the same grade they go to school with generally speaking. That is until they show some level of dedication and decide to commit to DA/ODP.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 5, 2015 12:25:44 GMT -5
I guess I'm not so concerned personally because my kid's team split up in May of this year, at U15 after being together for a long time, some since U9. Some friends don't play any more. Some play at a considerably higher level now. Some now play at a lower level. It took some getting used to, but the kid is on a new team now, still playing and enjoying it. My closest personal friends are soccer friends, and now I have more.
Roll with the punches.
|
|