|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 12, 2016 9:57:20 GMT -5
Saw this on twitter, this is the future
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 12, 2016 10:46:31 GMT -5
Oh, this is classic. Can I like it more than once?
|
|
|
Post by u2dadatlanta on Feb 20, 2016 19:55:26 GMT -5
no. a 1000 times no. If you must do something like this, how about a small patch on the uni.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 20, 2016 21:55:44 GMT -5
I am pretty sure this was meant as humor... I certainly took it as such.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 21, 2016 16:01:46 GMT -5
My kids headbands came in the mail yesterday. The kids are crazy excited now for tryouts!!!
|
|
|
Post by parentsoccerfan on Feb 21, 2016 16:43:39 GMT -5
My kids headbands came in the mail yesterday. The kids are crazy excited now for tryouts!!! This made my day!!!
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Feb 26, 2016 11:17:47 GMT -5
I like this a lot.
At the risk of starting this probably fruitless conversation all over again, can someone tell me what would happen if US Club and USYSA decided to stay with August-July? What would be the practical implications for them? USSF going to kick them out? Fine them? They would have to form teams for specific USSF events that were based on birth year? How many of those events are there? I don't get why these organizations follow the USSF like lemmings for something that does not make sense for the way our society is structured? I honestly don't care about one choice versus another other than considering the practical consequences for the largest segment of the population. I am just wondering why, if there is a struggle of opinion, US Club and USYSA couldn't just say, "Thanks for the suggestion, but we are good right now."
Look, I am all for positive change. But the bottom line for our country is that we have sports organized by school year, and the school year starts August/September everywhere. The overwhelming majority of our high level athletes want to go to college. College is organized by school year. It is not necessary for a club sport to be organized by school year, but there are definite advantages. I would be all for this structural change if other changes were implemented to help it make sense FOR OUR SOCIETY.
I will point out that I am saying this from the perspective of someone who's players would benefit greatly from the change to birth year teams. Those benefits, however, would be partially an illusion. Regardless, our players are doing great right now; I have no complaints and they have no complaints.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 26, 2016 12:44:35 GMT -5
zizou, I don't think US Club Soccer or USYS is likely to break with the mother ship over something like this. I get the feeling they are just too close. Sure, if they said 'forget it' and didn't do it, there isn't a whole lot USSF could do, but I honestly don't see that ever happening.
The more likely scenario is individual states or leagues ignoring it. But they won't do it if they ever want to go to tournaments anywhere and have their teams be the most competitive they can be (not having to play up a year to allow their "illegal" older players to play).
I have been one of the most vocal here against this change, but I'm resigned now. This is going to happen, it's going to suck for a couple years. Small clubs are going to be seriously impacted. Sept-Dec kids are going to be negatively impacted in 8th and 12th grades, and the band-aids to fix that won't help a lot. Then after a couple years everyone will be used to it and aside from the 8th/12th pain, it won't make that much difference.
10 years from now USSF will decide to switch it back because we will not have magically won a men's World Cup because of the change, and they'll want to look like they're doing *something* to fix it. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
|
Post by soccergator on Feb 26, 2016 13:19:48 GMT -5
Yea, it will switch again etc. I hate it hate it hate it, but I'm resigned now also. My biggest resentment is honestly the small sided mandate not aligning with the age mandates and that we are pushing kids to bigger fields faster. This is still crazy absurd to me, and I do think the girls game will suffer, when ALL the 2004s girls are thrown out on a full size giant 11v11 pitch in the fall. Remember its not just the top girls, its all 2004s (besides DA) will be playing 11v11. The smaller girls will struggle and this is bad!!!! Maybe someone with a brain, realized that all 2004s regardless of skill level and sex, should play 9v9 in the fall. I'm not crossing my fingers on this one.
I'm at an extremely large club, but one of the kids is at the smaller club of the merge you could say. I do fear that this change will devastate the youth academy on the girls side (and I don't have a younger daughter, so no dog in the fight). The girls program has already been declining year after year/ age group after age group, that this could be the nail in the coffin. The numbers are very low, and switching teams up at this point will break up the 1 or 2 teams that could have a future. I fear that most of the top players will leave for clubs where there will be more known depth. And I think most will move clubs and leave the "umbrella" vs just head north. Similar to what happened with the rising u14 girls age group last year, I fear that happening with all the younger girls age groups.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Feb 26, 2016 13:29:47 GMT -5
I am just wondering why, if there is a struggle of opinion, US Club and USYSA couldn't just say, "Thanks for the suggestion, but we are good right now." When we had our meeting with GA soccer a week or so ago, they told us that USYS and USClub Soccer were part of the voting for age mandate, they had their chance then to say they didn't like it but they agreed to it.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 26, 2016 14:53:32 GMT -5
I am just wondering why, if there is a struggle of opinion, US Club and USYSA couldn't just say, "Thanks for the suggestion, but we are good right now." When we had our meeting with GA soccer a week or so ago, they told us that USYS and USClub Soccer were part of the voting for age mandate, they had their chance then to say they didn't like it but they agreed to it. That was my understanding as well, so it begs the question of why the technical working group recently came out sorta-opposed to it, and USYS and US Club Soccer were signed onto that.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Feb 26, 2016 15:09:24 GMT -5
When we had our meeting with GA soccer a week or so ago, they told us that USYS and USClub Soccer were part of the voting for age mandate, they had their chance then to say they didn't like it but they agreed to it. That was my understanding as well, so it begs the question of why the technical working group recently came out sorta-opposed to it, and USYS and US Club Soccer were signed onto that. smoke and mirrors.... That letter was nothing else but something to make people feel better, so that they think that they at least tried
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Feb 26, 2016 15:42:17 GMT -5
That was my understanding as well, so it begs the question of why the technical working group recently came out sorta-opposed to it, and USYS and US Club Soccer were signed onto that. smoke and mirrors.... That letter was nothing else but something to make people feel better, so that they think that they at least tried Yea. I disagree with this assessment. So do more connected people than me. But we will see.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Feb 26, 2016 16:47:12 GMT -5
There is nothing to see?
Mandate is happening
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Feb 26, 2016 17:07:18 GMT -5
There is nothing to see? Mandate is happening Was talking about the significance of the Technical Working Group statement, which you trivialized. Not whether age mandate was happening.
|
|