|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 11:59:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hotspur1 on Oct 21, 2015 12:07:28 GMT -5
So wait.. rather than having those u14's born in 2002 make a decision to play "up" or stay in u14 for another year, is this saying that anyone born in 2001 will actually lose an entire year of club soccer? If so, how is this good for development?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 21, 2015 12:12:15 GMT -5
something doesn't jibe.. here is the one from above and then also the one for DA, which doesn't align with the US Youth Soccer one...
|
|
|
Post by hotspur1 on Oct 21, 2015 12:16:15 GMT -5
something doesn't jibe.. here is the one from above and then also the one for DA, which doesn't align with the US Youth Soccer one... After a short moment of freaking out thinking that my daughter was going to lose a year, I looked at this table and believe that the pdf that is linked is just a formatting error.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 12:21:17 GMT -5
no idea which one is right anymore?? the other forum has been talking about it for days
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 21, 2015 12:28:57 GMT -5
If this is correct, it would mean that my 8yr old would start at U10. I do not believe this is correct because it also states:
Also note that the format “ U followed by age ” really means that age andyounger. For example, U8 should be read as 8 and younger.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 12:30:21 GMT -5
If this is correct, it would mean that my 8yr old would start at U10. I do not believe this is correct because it also states: Also note that the format “ U followed by age ” really means that age andyounger. For example, U8 should be read as 8 and younger. no, because if you're 8, you're not under 8 you're under 9 my 9 year old plays u10 right now, he will turn 10 in the summer of 2016, according to the new chart he will be playing U11 next fall, which to me seems correct
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 21, 2015 12:33:31 GMT -5
Correct but if you look at the matrix it says that 2007 would be U10 which at no time will any 2007 be older than 9.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdadinga on Oct 21, 2015 12:34:09 GMT -5
So next year, if your kid is born from 8/1/01 - 12/31/01, instead of playing U15, your kid will play U16. The same cascading effect is true for all players, i.e., August 2002 - December 2002, instead of playing U14 will play U15. On the youngest age group, the U6's born between 1/1/11 - 8/1/11, who are currently 4 years old and play U6, will repeat U6.
I think the age group most hurt by his are the current U13s born between 8/1/02 - 12/31/02. In the current, and soon to be former system, they would play U14 soccer next year for two full seasons. However, when they age up to U15, they will only get to play half a season of soccer, unless they play RPL/ECNL/DA, etc. because the US Soccer system must yield to High School soccer. Plus, they will be playing against Girls/Boys who will be used to playing a much more physical game -- both HS soccer and the exponential growth changes that make the game much more physical at those ages.
In general though, I think it's a good idea to encourage small sided games, to avoid kick and run soccer and get kids to appreciate the value of being able to control the ball in small spaces. US Soccer has far too many instances, on both the Mens and Womens' teams of big and fast but not technical. So those moves are appreciated and I think necessary in both pools, mens' and womens'.
As for the age group, my universal experience has been that older players tend to get on top teams and top teams are filled with older players. And while this move only shifts the definition of older, it will at least line up with the rest of the world. However, I think the bigger issue is finally embracing small sided soccer games and ending the lunacy of having U11s playing 11v11, thinking they need to prepare for U12, so that they can get better placement the 1st season at U13.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 12:38:03 GMT -5
Correct but if you look at the matrix it says that 2007 would be U10 which at no time will any 2007 be older than 9. exactly, so if theyre 9, theyre U10 like the matrix says One of the charts is wrong, i guess we wait and see what they say tonight. Im sure people will bring it up at meeting.
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 21, 2015 12:47:18 GMT -5
Yes you are correct, I didn't notice that it says 2016-2017 plus my son is a Dec 2007 so I was a little thrown off.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 21, 2015 12:49:49 GMT -5
something doesn't jibe.. here is the one from above and then also the one for DA, which doesn't align with the US Youth Soccer one... That is awesome! Stark contrast. Based on other things I have read and heard, UC Club Soccer seemed to be assuming the DA calendar was the one to use, but the math could be confused. The bottom line is that the 'U' designations are meaningless. Regardless, no one will lose a year of youth soccer. If the USYS calendar is indeed correct, I imagine there simply will be more U18/U19 kids still in club soccer than there are today.
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 21, 2015 12:53:46 GMT -5
I think the age group most hurt by his are the current U13s born between 8/1/02 - 12/31/02. In the current, and soon to be former system, they would play U14 soccer next year for two full seasons. However, when they age up to U15, they will only get to play half a season of soccer, unless they play RPL/ECNL/DA, etc. because the US Soccer system must yield to High School soccer. Plus, they will be playing against Girls/Boys who will be used to playing a much more physical game -- both HS soccer and the exponential growth changes that make the game much more physical at those ages. That's true. I wonder what the clubs will do with that group?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 21, 2015 12:56:31 GMT -5
My guess its an error in the US youth soccer one. If I recall, the first version had ages starting with the 2017/2018 season, they probably added the 2016/2017 season but didn't make the correct change.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 21, 2015 12:58:14 GMT -5
no idea which one is right anymore?? the other forum has been talking about it for days I must admit that I just went over there to check when you said this. But how can you tell what in the ech-ee-double toothpick is being discussed over there?! I did not have the patience to search through the muck.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 13:00:41 GMT -5
no idea which one is right anymore?? the other forum has been talking about it for days I must admit that I just went over there to check when you said this. But how can you tell what in the ech-ee-double toothpick is being discussed over there?! I did not have the patience to search through the muck. i clicked on there and it was the 1st or 2nd post so i saw it, im sure its way at the bottom now haha No idea what is going on over there though, lots of politic talks, begging Rafe to come back, some AFU coach being thrown under the bus, and lots of insults...any given day over there lol
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Oct 21, 2015 18:17:35 GMT -5
If you go the US Soccer website it is different than the posted matrix. There it says for example 02s will play U14 which is what it's been all along. I think the attached matrix is incorrect
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 21, 2015 18:39:58 GMT -5
If you go the US Soccer website it is different than the posted matrix. There it says for example 02s will play U14 which is what it's been all along. I think the attached matrix is incorrect I thought it must be incorrect also, but the U's in the US Soccer chart make no sense. The problem in the US Soccer chart is that we do not know what the first column means. It gives years (e.g., 2016, 2017, etc), but if that column just means the whole calendar year then the data in the chart are trivially correct. For instance, a player born in 2004 is certainly U12 (12 or under) for all of 2016. But if the first column means 2016-2017 season (which is the current organization), then the U's in that chart make no sense because a 2004 player born in March, for instance, will be 13 before the season ends. Hard to still be labelled a U12 at that point. They just need to retire the U's designations. The only way the U's designations work effectively with birth year is if they re-organized the seasons to start in January.
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Oct 21, 2015 19:02:07 GMT -5
I'm fairly certain I am correct. 01s jumping to u16 makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 21, 2015 19:54:04 GMT -5
Does it really matter if its called u15 or u16??? Every kid will be an 01 or below anyway.
Your kids will play against kids their own age unless you play up
New chart has u19 also which old chart has as u18. Its the same thing different labels
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 21, 2015 20:07:24 GMT -5
It has to be wrong. No way that it doesn't align with DA. And it does make a difference since at the "u13" age group teams play classic 1 or Athena a.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 21, 2015 20:17:25 GMT -5
It has to be wrong. No way that it doesn't align with DA. And it does make a difference since at the "u13" age group teams play classic 1 or Athena a. You may be right. But it is also the case that the labels are fungible. They could just change the start of select soccer to "U14". What I find humorous is that the people implementing the changes can't clearly explicate the new structure the changes will cause. You would think all of this would have been detailed in meetings and would have accompanied the rollout of the new US Soccer youth development initiatives. Now they look incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 21, 2015 21:17:38 GMT -5
It also makes a difference because if they take it up so that 00 is U17 then that means all the August-December birthday kids will lose a whole year of soccer (unless they also increase to U20 instead of ending at U19).
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 22, 2015 6:06:53 GMT -5
It also makes a difference because if they take it up so that 00 is U17 then that means all the August-December birthday kids will lose a whole year of soccer (unless they also increase to U20 instead of ending at U19). Im confused? How do you figure they loose a year? It ended at u18 before now at u19. If you loose a year in one end you gain one in the other end. With the current way 00's are playing u16 and playing u17 next year correct? The new chart shows 00's playing u17 next year which is the same thing, in fact by adding u19 some kids get an additional year of playing if you're born at beggining of year. It doesn't matter if your bday is in Jan or December, nowhere does it say that you have to have had a birthday before tryouts, just that you have that birth year.
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 22, 2015 6:26:37 GMT -5
I don't understand why anyone cares about U-anything. The designations will be 2002, 2003, etc. That's the important thing. No one with a birthday earlier than January 2002 can play with the 2002 group. If a 2003 wants to play up, that's up to the club/coach.
|
|
|
Post by fan on Oct 22, 2015 6:34:00 GMT -5
It also makes a difference because if they take it up so that 00 is U17 then that means all the August-December birthday kids will lose a whole year of soccer (unless they also increase to U20 instead of ending at U19). 00s with Aug-Dec birthdays are mostly playing U15. My child (late 00) would play U17 as a sophomore, U18 as a junior and U19 as a senior. I guess they can call the age groups whatever they want but the DA age groups make more sense to me. It's nice to have the oldest age group be a bit older than high school seniors so you can catch anyone who may be a little older but is still in high school (kids held back from starting kindergarten, etc.). I'm interested to see at what age group they'll stop playing in the spring - U15 when my youngest will be a 8th grader??
|
|
|
Post by hotspur1 on Oct 22, 2015 7:30:08 GMT -5
It also makes a difference because if they take it up so that 00 is U17 then that means all the August-December birthday kids will lose a whole year of soccer (unless they also increase to U20 instead of ending at U19). Im confused? How do you figure they loose a year? It ended at u18 before now at u19. If you loose a year in one end you gain one in the other end. With the current way 00's are playing u16 and playing u17 next year correct? The new chart shows 00's playing u17 next year which is the same thing, in fact by adding u19 some kids get an additional year of playing if you're born at beggining of year. It doesn't matter if your bday is in Jan or December, nowhere does it say that you have to have had a birthday before tryouts, just that you have that birth year. First of all, I think the matrix is incorrect. But if it's correct, this is why it appears that some kids will lose a year. My daughter, born in 2001 is playing u14. According to the matrix, next year she will play u16. The next year will move to u17 and so on. Effectively skipping a u15 season that others will still have. (For example, another girl playing on her u14 squad that was born in jan of 2002 would play u15, 16, 17, 18 , and 19. My daughter, the way I'm reading it, would lose her u15 year....leaving her with 4 club years left versus 5. Again, I think the chart is incorrect and a formatting error though so not too worried at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Strikermom on Oct 22, 2015 7:34:11 GMT -5
That is what I see as well. My Jan. 2001 daughter playing U15 this year with teammates that are 2000 birthdays, will not play U16 together, the 2000 group will play U17. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 22, 2015 8:02:01 GMT -5
Im confused? How do you figure they loose a year? It ended at u18 before now at u19. If you loose a year in one end you gain one in the other end. With the current way 00's are playing u16 and playing u17 next year correct? The new chart shows 00's playing u17 next year which is the same thing, in fact by adding u19 some kids get an additional year of playing if you're born at beggining of year. It doesn't matter if your bday is in Jan or December, nowhere does it say that you have to have had a birthday before tryouts, just that you have that birth year. First of all, I think the matrix is incorrect. But if it's correct, this is why it appears that some kids will lose a year. My daughter, born in 2001 is playing u14. According to the matrix, next year she will play u16. The next year will move to u17 and so on. Effectively skipping a u15 season that others will still have. (For example, another girl playing on her u14 squad that was born in jan of 2002 would play u15, 16, 17, 18 , and 19. My daughter, the way I'm reading it, would lose her u15 year....leaving her with 4 club years left versus 5. Again, I think the chart is incorrect and a formatting error though so not too worried at this point. she doesnt loose a year. with the old system starting next year she had 4 years left not 5. you're counting this year and thinking its five. She still gets 4 more years on top the current year because before it ended at u18 and now at u19 Current System -- 2015 - U14 2016 - U15 2017 - U16 2018 - U17 2019 - U18 Thats 4 more years plus the current year = 5 New System 2015 - U14 2016 - U16 2017 - U17 2018 - U18 2019 - U19 Thats also 4 more years plus the current year which also equals to 5 No one looses any playing years, its just a new label and people are getting confused about it. Yes it looks like she would skip U15 and "loose a year" but shes gaining U19 which she didnt have before. And everyone that is born that same year will be in the same boat so shes not playing kids that are more than a year older than her unless she plays up
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 22, 2015 8:03:39 GMT -5
Yea, there is no question its WRONG......
I think we will see the U prefix for some time still because -- * small sided standards for u6 to u12 age groups * u13 age group will begin with full 11v11 * in Georgia U13s begin playing classic/athena * in Georgia U15 and greater do not play in the spring * DA still/has always used the U14/U16/U18 nomenclature and obviously is adding U12 * ECNL begins play at U14 * Other age specific rules (i.e. playing time standards, etc)
|
|