|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 29, 2015 8:08:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 29, 2015 9:20:19 GMT -5
If I didn't know that most of the objections were simply common sense I'd say someone has been reading this forum.
The truth, though, is that anyone who can think things through even a little bit will realize that changing youth soccer all the way down to rec will do nothing to help the USMNT, will definitely hurt existing players/teams, and may actually hurt future development (by consolidating our two RAE cutoff dates [select soccer and ODP/DA] into one RAE cutoff date).
The truth is, anyone in consideration for USMNT duty is already playing DA, and is already on a calendar year.
Everything else is simply "coaching theater" -- pretending like they are doing something valuable to make people think they are doing something valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 29, 2015 9:36:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 29, 2015 11:18:49 GMT -5
This summed it up for me:
The main reason for the mandates is that it will lead to the improvement of identifying the most elite players that maybe represent an incredibly small fraction of the entire playing youth population. To change an ENTIRE system so that a small staff can find the best 25 players in the country is not rationale.
Again, it's not a bad idea to be in line with how the rest of the world plays soccer but start it at the young ages now - grandfather in the older teams.
|
|
|
Post by ilove8amgames on Oct 29, 2015 13:15:05 GMT -5
This sums up the attitude of these commentators for me: all change is bad, and some change is worse.
For Pete's sake, it is not like we are changing to the metric system, or changing to right-handed steering cars. And to be honest, it'll be nice when everyone just swallows their medicine and refocuses on something that they actually can change and leave it up to the professionals to dictate how youth soccer in the US is administered.
|
|
|
Post by soccerfutbolfam on Oct 29, 2015 13:45:32 GMT -5
Based on what I have heard, the US did not change 'back' to the birth year when the rest of the world did... So, now they're trying to handle things the way they should have, the way the rest of the world does, etc.
I have one kid who is impacted and one who isn't. In reality, it will even out. AT the end of the day, not earth shattering. But, most adults don't handle change well. We could all take some lessons from the kids and just go with it.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 29, 2015 14:52:44 GMT -5
This sums up the attitude of these commentators for me: all change is bad, and some change is worse. For Pete's sake, it is not like we are changing to the metric system, or changing to right-handed steering cars. And to be honest, it'll be nice when everyone just swallows their medicine and refocuses on something that they actually can change and leave it up to the professionals to dictate how youth soccer in the US is administered. Hah, the professionals are doing a fabulous job so far. They can't even agree what age group kids will play in next year. That's some serious confidence-inspiring work right there. Oh, and how are they doing at developing our men's national team? Very professional. By all means, though, let's ignore the other professionals who disagree with the change for reasons that do not involve their own kids. After all, the only possible reason to oppose this is for selfish motives, right?
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 29, 2015 14:54:39 GMT -5
And once again, even if you agree with the changes 100%, is it possible that it might make sense to grandfather in the existing teams so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? Isn't that enough of a real-world problem to consider other implementation options?
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 29, 2015 15:12:55 GMT -5
And once again, even if you agree with the changes 100%, is it possible that it might make sense to grandfather in the existing teams so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? Isn't that enough of a real-world problem to consider other implementation options? quoting this so I can like and agree again! Older teams ARE negatively impacted. Just let the ones in high school finish out with their teams and implement the changes with the younger teams first. It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Oct 29, 2015 15:22:21 GMT -5
And once again, even if you agree with the changes 100%, is it possible that it might make sense to grandfather in the existing teams so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? Isn't that enough of a real-world problem to consider other implementation options? I don't see a reason to wait.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 29, 2015 15:34:04 GMT -5
And once again, even if you agree with the changes 100%, is it possible that it might make sense to grandfather in the existing teams so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? Isn't that enough of a real-world problem to consider other implementation options? I don't see a reason to wait. so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year?
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Oct 30, 2015 6:48:25 GMT -5
I don't see a reason to wait. so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? you sound like an alarmist. everything will be fine and work itself out.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 30, 2015 8:35:13 GMT -5
so that we literally do not have players left without their teams next year? you sound like an alarmist. everything will be fine and work itself out. Does your club have any age groups at either gender that have no teams?
|
|
|
Post by totaalvoetbal on Oct 30, 2015 9:09:09 GMT -5
you sound like an alarmist. everything will be fine and work itself out. Does your club have any age groups at either gender that have no teams? Yeah, I think that a change like this must've been thought out pretty well by the powers that be in order to implement it. I think this will be a good move in the long-term, but will have some short-term problems. And since I quoted your question I'll go ahead and say no.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Oct 30, 2015 9:40:17 GMT -5
Does your club have any age groups at either gender that have no teams? Yeah, I think that a change like this must've been thought out pretty well by the powers that be in order to implement it. I think this will be a good move in the long-term, but will have some short-term problems. And since I quoted your question I'll go ahead and say no. What makes it a good move? Only thing I can think of is that when club teams play international matches, the age groups will be aligned. Otherwise, the only impact will be negative. You will have kids deciding not to play because of it (both now and later - a lot of kids at young ages play because their friends play) because they can't play with the kids in their grade. You will have older 8th graders without a team in the Spring. You will have older 12th graders without a team in the Fall. The negatives certainly outweigh the positives. In America, soccer already has to compete against other sports (more so than in any other country - in almost every other country in the world, at least the ones who do well in soccer, soccer is the most popular sport). The age group mandate will only serve to make soccer less appealing. I don't think the decision was given much thought at all - it's a self-serving decision that only benefits the top .1 %.
|
|
|
Post by soccergator on Oct 30, 2015 9:43:15 GMT -5
Yes life will move on but like you said yourself this has been thought out and this decision didn't happen over night. The simplest thing when implementing age specific standards is to discuss what age you are even talking about! When developing these standards etc, you pick an age group/birth year as an example and go through the process for that birth year to ensure it meets your newly designed standards and programs.
For example before you do anything, someone stands up and says for Fall 2016 and the Spring 2017 seasons I believe that 11 and 12 year olds should NOT play 11v11 but rather play 9v9. The room applauds but Coach Mike from California stands up and says, thank you Jim, but Exactly what birth year are we talking about for Fall 2016 and Spring 2017, because we all know age is continuous and this gets confusing? We need to sort this out before we move forward with any recommendations!
|
|
|
Post by totaalvoetbal on Oct 30, 2015 9:51:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I think that a change like this must've been thought out pretty well by the powers that be in order to implement it. I think this will be a good move in the long-term, but will have some short-term problems. And since I quoted your question I'll go ahead and say no. What makes it a good move? Only thing I can think of is that when club teams play international matches, the age groups will be aligned. Otherwise, the only impact will be negative. You will have kids deciding not to play because of it (both now and later - a lot of kids at young ages play because their friends play) because they can't play with the kids in their grade. You will have older 8th graders without a team in the Spring. You will have older 12th graders without a team in the Fall. The negatives certainly outweigh the positives. In America, soccer already has to compete against other sports (more so than in any other country - in almost every other country in the world, at least the ones who do well in soccer, soccer is the most popular sport). The age group mandate will only serve to make soccer less appealing. I don't think the decision was given much thought at all - it's a self-serving decision that only benefits the top .1 %. So I think this a good move because since we are not aligned with other country's and their years we have players who are physically at a different stage and thus look much better or I guess worse than they actually are. We need to make this an even playing field so to speak. I think this also benefits the academy teams for the MLS in the same way. I mean, how many kids are we going to lose because of that first point you raise? For every time you say there is a kid who only plays because of his/her friends, I'm sure I can talk of a counter-situation. Why exactly would these older 8th graders and 12 graders be without teams? I think that a big problem right now with any change happening in the USSF is that people are only looking at the immediate impacts. I don't have a kid who would be effected by this, so I'm sure I don't see that side as well as I could. However, from a coach and soccer observer perspective, then I think this is a good move.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Oct 30, 2015 10:01:59 GMT -5
What makes it a good move? Only thing I can think of is that when club teams play international matches, the age groups will be aligned. Otherwise, the only impact will be negative. You will have kids deciding not to play because of it (both now and later - a lot of kids at young ages play because their friends play) because they can't play with the kids in their grade. You will have older 8th graders without a team in the Spring. You will have older 12th graders without a team in the Fall. The negatives certainly outweigh the positives. In America, soccer already has to compete against other sports (more so than in any other country - in almost every other country in the world, at least the ones who do well in soccer, soccer is the most popular sport). The age group mandate will only serve to make soccer less appealing. I don't think the decision was given much thought at all - it's a self-serving decision that only benefits the top .1 %. So I think this a good move because since we are not aligned with other country's and their years we have players who are physically at a different stage and thus look much better or I guess worse than they actually are. We need to make this an even playing field so to speak. I think this also benefits the academy teams for the MLS in the same way. I mean, how many kids are we going to lose because of that first point you raise? For every time you say there is a kid who only plays because of his/her friends, I'm sure I can talk of a counter-situation. Why exactly would these older 8th graders and 12 graders be without teams? I think that a big problem right now with any change happening in the USSF is that people are only looking at the immediate impacts. I don't have a kid who would be effected by this, so I'm sure I don't see that side as well as I could. However, from a coach and soccer observer perspective, then I think this is a good move. Older 8th graders will be playing with younger 9th graders. During the spring, those 9th graders will be playing high school soccer. Older 12th graders will be playing with younger Freshman in college who are likely not going to stay and play club soccer. I'd say those are two of the biggest problems. My daughter already plays up a year, so this will not really affect her (but it will affect a lot of her friends and she is kind of bummed about that), but it will affect a lot of kids, immediately and in the future. The vast majority of soccer players in the US are never going to play a match against an International Team. Not sure why we have to cater to the top 1% at the expense of the masses.
|
|
|
Post by totaalvoetbal on Oct 30, 2015 11:06:25 GMT -5
So I think this a good move because since we are not aligned with other country's and their years we have players who are physically at a different stage and thus look much better or I guess worse than they actually are. We need to make this an even playing field so to speak. I think this also benefits the academy teams for the MLS in the same way. I mean, how many kids are we going to lose because of that first point you raise? For every time you say there is a kid who only plays because of his/her friends, I'm sure I can talk of a counter-situation. Why exactly would these older 8th graders and 12 graders be without teams? I think that a big problem right now with any change happening in the USSF is that people are only looking at the immediate impacts. I don't have a kid who would be effected by this, so I'm sure I don't see that side as well as I could. However, from a coach and soccer observer perspective, then I think this is a good move. Older 8th graders will be playing with younger 9th graders. During the spring, those 9th graders will be playing high school soccer. Older 12th graders will be playing with younger Freshman in college who are likely not going to stay and play club soccer. I'd say those are two of the biggest problems. My daughter already plays up a year, so this will not really affect her (but it will affect a lot of her friends and she is kind of bummed about that), but it will affect a lot of kids, immediately and in the future. The vast majority of soccer players in the US are never going to play a match against an International Team. Not sure why we have to cater to the top 1% at the expense of the masses. I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 30, 2015 11:12:31 GMT -5
What makes it a good move? Only thing I can think of is that when club teams play international matches, the age groups will be aligned. Otherwise, the only impact will be negative. You will have kids deciding not to play because of it (both now and later - a lot of kids at young ages play because their friends play) because they can't play with the kids in their grade. You will have older 8th graders without a team in the Spring. You will have older 12th graders without a team in the Fall. The negatives certainly outweigh the positives. In America, soccer already has to compete against other sports (more so than in any other country - in almost every other country in the world, at least the ones who do well in soccer, soccer is the most popular sport). The age group mandate will only serve to make soccer less appealing. I don't think the decision was given much thought at all - it's a self-serving decision that only benefits the top .1 %. So I think this a good move because since we are not aligned with other country's and their years we have players who are physically at a different stage and thus look much better or I guess worse than they actually are. We need to make this an even playing field so to speak. I think this also benefits the academy teams for the MLS in the same way. I mean, how many kids are we going to lose because of that first point you raise? For every time you say there is a kid who only plays because of his/her friends, I'm sure I can talk of a counter-situation. Why exactly would these older 8th graders and 12 graders be without teams? I think that a big problem right now with any change happening in the USSF is that people are only looking at the immediate impacts. I don't have a kid who would be effected by this, so I'm sure I don't see that side as well as I could. However, from a coach and soccer observer perspective, then I think this is a good move. So two questions come to mind here. 1) are we actually sending (for example) 1997 august-december born players to play against international 1996-born players, or are we sending all 1996 players already? I think it's EXTREMELY unlikely that we're sending younger players to play against international competition simply because that's how most of our youth soccer system is aligned, but I'd be interested to see if that is the case, and if so, why. It would seem silly, but this IS an organization that cannot even decide what U11 will mean going forward after announcing sweeping changes. 2) how many players going into the US National Team pool now are NOT playing DA? Because if they are playing DA then they are already aligned on a calendar year. So what changes for our national team pool? The way I see it, absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 30, 2015 11:14:30 GMT -5
Older 8th graders will be playing with younger 9th graders. During the spring, those 9th graders will be playing high school soccer. Older 12th graders will be playing with younger Freshman in college who are likely not going to stay and play club soccer. I'd say those are two of the biggest problems. My daughter already plays up a year, so this will not really affect her (but it will affect a lot of her friends and she is kind of bummed about that), but it will affect a lot of kids, immediately and in the future. The vast majority of soccer players in the US are never going to play a match against an International Team. Not sure why we have to cater to the top 1% at the expense of the masses. I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem. So in your mind there is no reason for Classic 2/Athena B and below to exist? If so, then I think we're discussing out of such different philosophies that we will never understand each other. But just as food for thought, send a decent C4 team up against a local rec department's all-star team. I guarantee you the classic boys will destroy the rec team.
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Oct 30, 2015 11:21:58 GMT -5
I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem. Really? What about college soccer at any level or competitive high school soccer? Good luck making a high school team in North Fulton, Gwinnett or Cobb without at least playing some Classic 2 or Athena B level soccer (probably more like 1/A/RPL is a minimum at many schools). While there could be an argument on the girls' side at least that Athena D/E/F are pretty similar to rec, many of those teams don't have enough competition locally so they have to play in state leagues to get games.
|
|
|
Post by totaalvoetbal on Oct 30, 2015 11:23:35 GMT -5
I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem. So in your mind there is no reason for Classic 2/Athena B and below to exist? If so, then I think we're discussing out of such different philosophies that we will never understand each other. But just as food for thought, send a decent C4 team up against a local rec department's all-star team. I guarantee you the classic boys will destroy the rec team. I don't even know what Classic 2/Athena B teams are, so I don't know? I don't think I ever implied that certain soccer teams "shouldn't exist" though. To respond to your previous post, no we send the same year of players. However, we probably have 1-2 players called up for YNTs that aren't on DA teams. This is essentially putting the DA teams and non-DA teams are the same footing and should hypothetically allow for kids to have a better chance of making that jump. I mean overall you guys have valid points, but I think it is a bit overdramatic to only see the negative here. There is good and bad, I see more good, you see more bad. And to address an earlier post is that yeah we don't have to have some sort of blind following of the people who lead the USSF and such, but we do have to trust that they see a whole lot more than we do and think about these things more than we do. I mean we all are going to be biased on a smaller scale and they see a larger scale.
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Oct 30, 2015 11:40:07 GMT -5
Older 8th graders will be playing with younger 9th graders. During the spring, those 9th graders will be playing high school soccer. Older 12th graders will be playing with younger Freshman in college who are likely not going to stay and play club soccer. I'd say those are two of the biggest problems. My daughter already plays up a year, so this will not really affect her (but it will affect a lot of her friends and she is kind of bummed about that), but it will affect a lot of kids, immediately and in the future. The vast majority of soccer players in the US are never going to play a match against an International Team. Not sure why we have to cater to the top 1% at the expense of the masses. I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem. You have a point here, but I still think the cons of the age group mandate outweigh the pros. In order to really compete with the rest of the world (on the men's side - we already do on the women's), we need to create a better soccer culture. I don't think we will ever really compete if half (or more than half) of our country dislikes soccer. We are a culture definitely far more obsessed with American football, baseball, and basketball. Maybe the mandate won't hurt the culture of soccer as a whole long term, but I am worried that it may and there definitely will be some resentment short term. As Jash pointed out, our very top level which is usually the only level that is playing internationally, is already based on birth years - I don't see a reason to complicate things at the high (but not top), intermediate, and low levels by creating high school, college soccer, and grade level issues (the 8th and 12th grade issues I already pointed out - the mandate also interferes with the fact the colleges recruit by graduation year not birth year). At our club players are actually allowed to play up a year if they have an August/September birthday but are in the older grade than the rest of the kids in their true age group. Most want to do this, and I think it is a good policy. Kids start playing soccer initially not because they want to play internationally, but because it is fun. For some, somewhere along the line they have the dream to play at the international level - hopefully it won't happen, but the fact that they don't get to play with kids their own age that they go to school with may deter some of them from even getting to that point - if it's not fun, they won't play. My daughter plays up (still in Academy but she is one of the top players on her team and her team is one of the top teams in GA in her age group) - somehow the players in her group have already gotten wind of the possible changes for next year and some have even talked about quitting if they can't play with their friends next year - hopefully we don't lose the next Carly Lloyd - their still young, so who knows how good they could be.
|
|
quest
Jr. Academy
Posts: 33
|
Post by quest on Oct 30, 2015 13:10:16 GMT -5
The issue I have is that we need to get better with our ball skill and confidenc, this is done in small sided games. This mandate with the current matrix will have 7yr old kids playing 7v7. I don't know about you but I am a coach in our PDA program and most 7yr old kids are not ready for that type of game.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 30, 2015 14:28:58 GMT -5
I don't know, if you want to play select soccer, it's presumably because you want to play international or professional soccer someday. While only 1% of those kids make it, I would think anyone wants to make it into that 1% would want this change. If you don't want to play international or professional soccer, just play rec? I'm sure you can get some friends together and play on a local rec team without this problem. Rather than trying to guess something else is meant here, I read this at face value. And I don't disagree. There are far too many kids playing club soccer for the social "status" and not for the game.. and wasting their money. I'm absolutely not dismissing the life lessons and friendships as meaningless, but Rec soccer is awesome too. Edit: ...all of which does absolutely nothing to help justify the birth year switch.
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Oct 30, 2015 21:35:04 GMT -5
Ok to you all that say "grandfather" them in, where do you draw the line?? All I hear is grandfather in the the older ages but no one says where, so let's here it. Give us a line in the sand where 8/1-7/31 ends and 1/1-12/31 begins
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 30, 2015 22:23:59 GMT -5
I'd say anyone already in select just leave them alone.
As you're thinking about how great this is going to make US Soccer, ask yourself what difference it will actually make to leave the U13 and up teams alone. These are the teams already set and placed, and continuity (though GA Soccer said they would waive continuity rules) DOES matter, as do other things we've discussed.
How will it matter? I just don't see how this is going to help.
|
|