|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 25, 2015 8:31:56 GMT -5
I guess (?) this makes it official... Georgia Soccer has posted the revised USYS age group matrix on their website, linked from their initial announcement of the forthcoming changes back in August. www.georgiasoccer.org/changes_coming_to_youth_soccer_in_2016/For what it's worth, Georgia Soccer had previously said that they were waiting for USSF and USYS to sort it out before releasing anything. And USYS posted that Tweet saying that USSF had changed their matrix. So this would suggest that USSF and USYS have now gotten on the same page, and the new matrix is the real matrix -- even though USSF still shows the "old" matrix on their website. So it appears that fall-born U11 players will now jump straight to U13 Select (so much for encouraging small-sided play...) and those same kids will be U15 in 8th grade, so they might not have a club OR high school season that year. The funny thing is that there is still disagreement with the "Calendar Year FAQ" document, linked from the same page. In that document, it states that a kid born in 2000 would be U16 in 2016-2017, but the new matrix shows them as U17. Isn't it great to have such clear and decisive leadership?
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 25, 2015 8:44:06 GMT -5
Thanks for posting. I wonder what effect that will have on RPL slots. Will this year's U14 (and therefore next year's U15) slot go to the 2002s? Previous assumption was that they would go to the 2001s.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 25, 2015 8:50:44 GMT -5
It is a shame clubs, the state association and the fed and their respective "webmessers" aren't on the same sheet of music... but tryouts are seven months from now.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 25, 2015 8:52:14 GMT -5
Crazy crazy crazy.
Funny thing is new matrix actually expedites the August - Dec birthdays and defetes the purpose of the entire small sided initiative.
Current 2004 u11s are jumping from 8v8 academy ball straight to classic u13!! Ouch.
That's the new matrix --- how is this better!! Kids are actually mandatory playing 11v11 faster now!!
Somebody really didn't think this through!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 25, 2015 8:54:17 GMT -5
It is a shame clubs, the state association and the fed and their respective "webmessers" aren't on the same sheet of music... but tryouts are seven months from now. Yes, there's certainly time to sort things out, but it doesn't really instill confidence when they are so publicly disorganized. They have some time to get their ducks in a row, so why not do that before trickling out inaccurate, revised, etc. information? How hard would it be for USSF and USYS to iron out the details and then coordinate their release of information?
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 25, 2015 8:57:02 GMT -5
Crazy crazy crazy. Funny thing is new matrix actually expedites the August - Dec birthdays and defetes the purpose of the entire small sided initiative. Current 2004 u11s are jumping from 8v8 academy ball straight to classic u13!! Ouch. That's the new matrix --- how is this better!! Kids are actually mandatory playing 11v11 faster now!! Somebody really didn't think this through!!!!!!!! Yes, exactly. They claim to want a greater focus on small-sided play, but they're now losing an average of a half year of small-sided play as kids progress through the system. Not to mention that their supposedly increased focus on small-sided play will result in MORE kids on the pitch in the younger age groups -- the old 6v6/8v8 matches will now be 7v7/9v9. The good news is that, with these changes, we will be competitive on the world stage... *rolls eyes*
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 25, 2015 9:06:32 GMT -5
It is a shame clubs, the state association and the fed and their respective "webmessers" aren't on the same sheet of music... but tryouts are seven months from now. Yes, there's certainly time to sort things out, but it doesn't really instill confidence when they are so publicly disorganized. They have some time to get their ducks in a row, so why not do that before trickling out inaccurate, revised, etc. information? How hard would it be for USSF and USYS to iron out the details and then coordinate their release of information? These guys floated "relative age effect" as justification. I expect nothing less than continued nonsense for several months.
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 25, 2015 10:54:28 GMT -5
These guys floated "relative age effect" as justification. I expect nothing less than continued nonsense for several months. At the same time, they've acknowledged that it won't actually solve that issue. There will always be older and younger kids in an age group, no matter where you draw the line. That's not the issue for me. Really, it's not -- I have kids on both sides of the age divide, so I don't really have a preference on that front. The bigger issue is, and always has been, the unintended consequences of screwing up the club/school interface, the fact that it will hurt player retention at younger ages (when kids really just want to play with their friends/classmates), and so forth. But... Whatever. It looks like they're pushing ahead with this, and in the worst possible way. That is, they're not only moving away from the academic year, but they're also making decisions that clearly fly in the face of what they claim to be doing. If small-sided play is so critical to development, why increase the # of players on the field and push kids out of Academy earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Oct 25, 2015 17:05:40 GMT -5
From what I was told today by our DOC who's on the rules committee for Ga Soccer is that matrix is wrong. In not what US Soccer is saying and he has brought it up to the higher ups at Ga Soccer and they aren't ready to accept blame for the typo.
|
|
|
Post by newposter on Oct 26, 2015 6:08:45 GMT -5
So what you are saying then is the 02s are going to stay u14 for example versus jumping to u15 as previously posted?
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 26, 2015 6:46:15 GMT -5
So what you are saying then is the 02s are going to stay u14 for example versus jumping to u15 as previously posted? How about the 02s will just be 02s and the 01s will just be 01s and so on...
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 26, 2015 8:09:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soccerdadinga on Oct 26, 2015 9:06:08 GMT -5
There are either two choices I think. Move the August-December birthdays up and skip one year or keep the January- July birthdays in their current playing year for an additional year. It makes absolutely no sense to have kids skip a year of development at the small sided ages and is not that big a deal to have them repeat it. I'd suspect that the GA Soccer matrix above is simply incorrect, but consistent. US Soccer posted www.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/1/15/USSoccerMandate-2015-16-to-2016-17-by-age-group-team-transistion-chart.pdf an age chart that is what you'd expect, that the younger kids repeat a year, not that you force younger kids into competition with older kids.
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 26, 2015 9:08:07 GMT -5
So what you are saying then is the 02s are going to stay u14 for example versus jumping to u15 as previously posted? How about the 02s will just be 02s and the 01s will just be 01s and so on... That's all well and good as far as age groupings go, but it misses the larger point of how the age groups interact with small-sided vs 11v11, as well as high school soccer. The new matrix pushes fall born (current) U11s straight (the 04 group) into 11v11 at what we now call U13 Select instead of another year of Academy ball. This effectively accelerates kids into 11v11 half a year earlier (on average) vs. the current situation despite the supposed focus on small-sided play. The original matrix has them playing 9v9 next year -- which is an increase vs. the current 8v8, once again despite the supposed focus on small-sided play to maximize touches... The new matrix means that fall born 8th graders will be called "U15" and may not have a spring season when they still won't be in high school (there is currently no U15 spring season). The original matrix had spring born freshman as U14 and possibly doubling up with club and high school at the same time. So yeah, call the age groups whatever you like, what matters is how they handle the playing experience during the critical transition years. I suspect that the U-whatever names will go away over time and groups will be just named by year, but the fact that they're clinging to them now suggests that those critical age transitions may not be handled properly.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 26, 2015 9:18:29 GMT -5
How about the 02s will just be 02s and the 01s will just be 01s and so on... So yeah, call the age groups whatever you like, what matters is how they handle the playing experience during the critical transition years. I suspect that the U-whatever names will go away over time and groups will be just named by year, but the fact that they're clinging to them now suggests that those critical age transitions may not be handled properly. All it means is that they did not think this through clearly. Which is certainly concerning. The split seasonal year thing (e.g., 2016-2017) has screwed up their thinking. USSF decided to base ages on beginning of seasonal year (e.g., 2016); USYS is technically correct if you want to use U designations in wanting them to be based on end of seasonal year (e.g. 2017). If they really do stay with the latter all the Fed has to do is change the small sided initiatives ages. That is what they should do if the chart that seems to accelerate players (have them skip a development year) is kept. Otherwise they are being really really dumb.
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 26, 2015 9:20:58 GMT -5
How about the 02s will just be 02s and the 01s will just be 01s and so on... That's all well and good as far as age groupings go, but it misses the larger point of how the age groups interact with small-sided vs 11v11, as well as high school soccer. The new matrix pushes fall born (current) U11s straight (the 04 group) into 11v11 at what we now call U13 Select instead of another year of Academy ball. This effectively accelerates kids into 11v11 half a year earlier (on average) vs. the current situation despite the supposed focus on small-sided play. The original matrix has them playing 9v9 next year -- which is an increase vs. the current 8v8, once again despite the supposed focus on small-sided play to maximize touches... The new matrix means that fall born 8th graders will be called "U15" and may not have a spring season when they still won't be in high school (there is currently no U15 spring season). The original matrix had spring born freshman as U14 and possibly doubling up with club and high school at the same time. So yeah, call the age groups whatever you like, what matters is how they handle the playing experience during the critical transition years. I suspect that the U-whatever names will go away over time and groups will be just named by year, but the fact that they're clinging to them now suggests that those critical age transitions may not be handled properly. I agree on the younger kids - that needs to be sorted out so that they know what version of the game they will be playing (11v11, 9v9, etc.). As for high school, using next year as an example, the Aug-Dec 2002's will be in 8th grade and the Jan-July 2002's will be in 9th grade. I'm not sure what they will do with those 8th graders, but it will be the same every year for that particular group in 8th grade, whether you call them U14, U15 or by their birth year.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 26, 2015 9:37:53 GMT -5
Anything that depends on the age that is a transition will make 'what we call it' matter. That's the transitions from different sizes, the high school issue, and the oldest age group that GA soccer runs. If that oldest group is U19 and they push the aug-dec up a year, those kids will lose a playing year off the end of their "youth soccer careers".
It all matters.
|
|
|
Post by ilove8amgames on Oct 26, 2015 10:03:12 GMT -5
Who knows what matrix is correct. There are good arguments to read it either way.
Nevertheless, if the 'new' one is the one they go with, it isn't that big a deal. First, 2004's are not U11, they are currently U12 (2003/2004). And under this new matrix, they would go to Classic U13 and play 11v11. I would think the top half of these teams (if not more) are already playing some of, if not all, their games as 11v11.
Second, they would have to play U13 next year anyway (again, 2004 is U12 currently), which again is 11v11. Just don't see that as your best argument against this change.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 26, 2015 10:10:24 GMT -5
wrong - the younger half of the 2004s are currently u11s. The aug - dec 2004s are currently u11s. yes the older half of the 2004s are currently u12s. The jan - july 2004s are currently u12s.
What i'm saying is now under this "new" matrix every aug-dec 2004 will now be mandated to play competitive 11v11 where as before, only the top teams played 11v11 and the majority of others still played 8v8, which is what they all should be paying anyway.
The new matrix does not align with the new standards. Either the new standards needs to be shifted or the matrix needs to switch to what was originally shared and matches the DA slideset.
I can tell you right now, those aug-dec 2004s are not ready for competitive 11v11. It pushing them forward and doing the opposite of what is intended. yes, nothing will have changed for the jan-july 2004s though.
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 26, 2015 10:32:59 GMT -5
Who knows what matrix is correct. There are good arguments to read it either way. Well, USYS has actually stated that their matrix is the right one, and that USSF will be updating theirs to align. And GA Soccer said that they wouldn't release an age matrix until USYS and USSF figured it out and got on the same page -- and they've now released the "revised" matrix. So it seems pretty clear that the higher ups think that they new one is the correct one, though they could still be mistaken. But what's in a name? As I've noted previously, it really doesn't matter what they call the age groups as long as they get the transitions right. My preference would be to continue to align with the school year, but it's pretty clear that won't happen. So the next best option is to move ahead with calendar year groups while paying careful attention to the academy/select transition, the middle/high school transition, and the aging-out problem for fall born U19 players. And, of course, none of this should have been released or publicized until they had actually ironed out all the details and made sure that all of the powers-that-be were in agreement.
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 26, 2015 11:38:12 GMT -5
If this revised matrix is correct this really does not help anyone. Both of our children are Dec babies and event though it will not affect my daughter as she currently plays up a year it will affect my son. He is currently in our PDA program and should have been playing U9 in the fall but now be playing U10. This would mean that 7 yr old will go to 7v7 at U9. This has no benefit for anyone and not good for development. The emphasis on small sided games is being ignored especially at the youngest age groups.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 26, 2015 11:41:03 GMT -5
The best solution to this mess??
Change the soccer year from Jan to Dec to align with the matrix
Lets have tryouts in December this year and call it a day...who is in??!!
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 26, 2015 11:46:04 GMT -5
I think that would be the best solution for the age matrix.
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 26, 2015 12:34:50 GMT -5
The best solution to this mess?? Change the soccer year from Jan to Dec to align with the matrix Lets have tryouts in December this year and call it a day...who is in??!! Sure, and why not change the school year to start in January, as well?
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 26, 2015 12:38:32 GMT -5
we should just all have our kids play rec ball.
If we all did it, Wow it would be crazy competitive........ and it sure would be a lot cheaper.....
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 26, 2015 13:00:39 GMT -5
The best solution to this mess?? Change the soccer year from Jan to Dec to align with the matrix Lets have tryouts in December this year and call it a day...who is in??!! Sure, and why not change the school year to start in January, as well? Let's do it! I grew up in another country... And we went to school Mar-April until Dec...and had a couple weeks off in July, we did have oppossite seasons though..
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 26, 2015 13:01:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 26, 2015 13:05:12 GMT -5
we should just all have our kids play rec ball. If we all did it, Wow it would be crazy competitive........ and it sure would be a lot cheaper..... Yea...but then we would still b having this matrix discussion lol
|
|
|
Post by soccrballr on Oct 26, 2015 13:35:14 GMT -5
Did they note this anywhere else on their website, or did they just stick it at the top of the revised matrix (making it the "re-revised" matrix?) and quietly replace the original download? Just wondering how you happened upon it. I wouldn't have thought to keep checking the pdf to see if it had changed unless they made a note of it somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Oct 26, 2015 13:55:55 GMT -5
The best solution to this mess?? Change the soccer year from Jan to Dec to align with the matrix Lets have tryouts in December this year and call it a day...who is in??!! Sure, and why not change the school year to start in January, as well? We should switch to calendar year school it's not like kids need to be out to tend to the farms anymore. Plus a lot of states that actually have decent education standards have gone to year round school anyway.
|
|