|
Post by soccermaxx72 on May 22, 2018 17:26:18 GMT -5
Very interesting read that relates to Sports. 1. A statistically significant amount of players that make it to the professional leagues of hockey and soccer are born in the first 2-4 months after the age cutoff date. In fact for Sports with a January 1 cutoff the ideal birthday is January 16-March 16. He goes on to explain what sociologists describe as the “accumulative advantage”. At a very young age the players at age 6-8 that play sports that are born earlier in the year can be almost 1 full year of physical development above their classmates, this leads to earlier identification as advanced or gifted players simply because they have the age advantage, this leads into competitive and travel teams for those players which leads to better coaching, more practice, more games and start the advantage for achievement early on. That’s not to say someone born in November has no chance but looking at age populations they are at a serious disadvantage.
Also Mastery, whether a sport or musical instrument, has been calculated at 10,000 hours of practice in ones sport or interest. These hours trump anything else in long term success.
|
|
|
Post by be real on May 22, 2018 19:11:55 GMT -5
Very interesting read that relates to Sports. 1. A statistically significant amount of players that make it to the professional leagues of hockey and soccer are born in the first 2-4 months after the age cutoff date. In fact for Sports with a January 1 cutoff the ideal birthday is January 16-March 16. He goes on to explain what sociologists describe as the “accumulative advantage”. At a very young age the players at age 6-8 that play sports that are born earlier in the year can be almost 1 full year of physical development abover their classmates, this leads to earlier identification as advanced or gifted players simply because they have the age advantage, this leads into competitive and travel teams for those players which leads to better coaching, more practice, more games and start the advantage for achievement early on. That’s not to say someone born in November has no chance but looking at age populations they are at a serious disadvantage. Also Mastery, whether a sport or musical instrument, has been calculated at 10,000 hours of practice in ones sport or interest. These hours trump anything else in long term success. Two words -> age mandate
|
|
|
Post by be real on May 22, 2018 19:57:05 GMT -5
Every sport should be birth year. Across the board. Stop whining. Since they're arbitrarily all over the calendar, research the sports that give your kid a relative age advantage and maybe they'll be good enough to turn that into an accumulative advantage. Then mix in 10,000 hours of training. And while you're at it, read a 10-year-old book to catch up with everyone else that read it a decade ago. Far from whining. Ussf age mandate was done for this reason. They think it'll help them compete with the rest of the world with early in the year birth kids. Before the favor was shifted to the late in the year birth kids. They sacrificed all the current kids for the future. Hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by soccermaxx72 on May 22, 2018 20:32:57 GMT -5
Every sport should be birth year. Across the board. Stop whining. Since they're arbitrarily all over the calendar, research the sports that give your kid a relative age advantage and maybe they'll be good enough to turn that into an accumulative advantage. Then mix in 10,000 hours of training. And while you're at it, read a 10-year-old book to catch up with everyone else that read it a decade ago. who’s whining? Not me? I just found it interesting and worthy of a conversation. I would argue your post added nothing intellectually to the conversation. So you can move on.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad76 on May 23, 2018 8:07:53 GMT -5
Every sport should be birth year. Across the board. Stop whining. Since they're arbitrarily all over the calendar, research the sports that give your kid a relative age advantage and maybe they'll be good enough to turn that into an accumulative advantage. Then mix in 10,000 hours of training. And while you're at it, read a 10-year-old book to catch up with everyone else that read it a decade ago. Far from whining. Ussf age mandate was done for this reason. They think it'll help them compete with the rest of the world with early in the year birth kids. Before the favor was shifted to the late in the year birth kids. They sacrificed all the current kids for the future. Hopefully. They flipped it from birth year to school year when I was playing as a kid. I bet our parents didn’t give a crap. 😜 Nobody is being sacrificed... a line has to be drawn somewhere. The recent change is unfortunate for some, and fortunate for others.
|
|
|
Post by paterfamilias on May 23, 2018 8:15:06 GMT -5
The 10,000 hour has been debunked as a sole indicator of success. There has to be a combination of talent and drive. The world is full of talented underacheuvers and focused overachievers. www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/10000-hour-rule-not-real-180952410/Don't get me wrong the 10,000 of practice will make one better, but perhaps not at the top of the food chain of the choosen field of study
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 23, 2018 8:29:30 GMT -5
As a parent, I prefer school year teams. Kids have a better chance of playing with friends. With birth year, the oldest teams fall apart and are reconstituted each year as half of the team graduates and moves on. It's a spirit killer for kids who like the game, but don't love it enough (or good enough) to play in college. So after 12 years, they have to deal with yet another new team in their senior year / last year of playing. Many kids say the heck with it...
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad76 on May 23, 2018 10:19:59 GMT -5
As a parent, I prefer school year teams. Kids have a better chance of playing with friends. With birth year, the oldest teams fall apart and are reconstituted each year as half of the team graduates and moves on. It's a spirit killer for kids who like the game, but don't love it enough (or good enough) to play in college. So after 12 years, they have to deal with yet another new team in their senior year / last year of playing. Many kids say the heck with it... sure, I understand that... which way is better is a different debate
|
|
|
Post by soccerfanga on May 23, 2018 11:14:58 GMT -5
So add bio-banding and relate it to birth yr and/or grade.
|
|
|
Post by forsythsd on May 23, 2018 11:26:39 GMT -5
School year age grouping is just BS from parents - they couldn’t care less about their kids playing with friends, they just want their kids to have a better chance of making the top team. I agree. Those "want to play with friends" parents happily abandon those friends the instant their kid gets an offer to move up. Very few would decline a promotion to "stay with friends".
|
|
|
Post by be real on May 23, 2018 11:53:45 GMT -5
Far from whining. Ussf age mandate was done for this reason. They think it'll help them compete with the rest of the world with early in the year birth kids. Before the favor was shifted to the late in the year birth kids. They sacrificed all the current kids for the future. Hopefully. They flipped it from birth year to school year when I was playing as a kid. I bet our parents didn’t give a crap. 😜 Nobody is being sacrificed... a line has to be drawn somewhere. The recent change is unfortunate for some, and fortunate for others. It is what it is. If you now look at the top teams, most kids are on the front end of the birth year. But I will add that a top kid is gonna be a top kid regardless.
|
|
|
Post by soccerloafer on May 23, 2018 11:56:34 GMT -5
Those speaking out against school age have clearly never had a child age out under the current set up. It's silly to set up a system that forces the oldest age group to break up in the last year. And yes, below a certain level, kids actually do enjoy playing competitive soccer with their friends, or at least friends they've developed over years of club play. For those not on the ECNL/DA/college track, the turmoil of turnover gets old and they want some stability to enjoy the game.
|
|
|
Post by be real on May 23, 2018 12:08:48 GMT -5
Those speaking out against school age have clearly never had a child age out under the current set up. It's silly to set up a system that forces the oldest age group to break up in the last year. And yes, below a certain level, kids actually do enjoy playing competitive soccer with their friends, or at least friends they've developed over years of club play. For those not on the ECNL/DA/college track, the turmoil of turnover gets old and they want some stability to enjoy the game. In hindsight, ussf should have grandfathered the age mandate. The possible good wouldn't be seen now anyways.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 23, 2018 12:54:59 GMT -5
What a bunch of crap. If you want to play with your school friends do an after-school program. It’s like the difference between year-round swimmers at Dynamo and the like vs summer neighborhood swim teams. Plus, parents are so into holding their kids back from even starting school for a year in the hopes it will give them some kind of advantage it’s disgusting. School year age grouping is just BS from parents - they couldn’t care less about their kids playing with friends, they just want their kids to have a better chance of making the top team. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on May 23, 2018 16:55:15 GMT -5
Those speaking out against school age have clearly never had a child age out under the current set up. It's silly to set up a system that forces the oldest age group to break up in the last year. And yes, below a certain level, kids actually do enjoy playing competitive soccer with their friends, or at least friends they've developed over years of club play. For those not on the ECNL/DA/college track, the turmoil of turnover gets old and they want some stability to enjoy the game. In hindsight, ussf should have grandfathered the age mandate. The possible good wouldn't be seen now anyways. Not even hindsight, plenty of people said it at the time. It could have easily been a graduated change. Year 1, incoming U9.. Year 2, U9 and U10, etc, etc... Then, the incoming club players would fall under birth year, and the existing club players would not have been affected. We saw so many teams get broken up, and so many kids that had to skip an age group.. it just sucked. My kid went from U10 to U12.. half her old team went to U11, and most of her new team had already played U11.. she was at a distinct disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on May 23, 2018 17:01:09 GMT -5
The bigger problem with the age mandate was also the confusion with the matrix and the original matrix for example a current 04 would have been a u13, but then they changed the matrix and an 04 became a u14. They got pushed forward a year. why does this matter? -- because it affected 7v7, 9v9 or and the u12 DA age group and then of course which age you start classic ball at u13.
hence why last year, DA used the "old" matrix and then this year switched to the new matrix.
Poorly implemented and unnecessary and shows some severe incompetence at the top of the food chain.
Because of this age matrix flop, kids were being accelerated to the bigger field at younger ages, which 100% contradicts the small sided mandate. How the state/regions/US club soccer just sat back and did nothing is shocking. What did they do, they wrote a "letter".
Nothing came of it.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on May 23, 2018 18:46:29 GMT -5
I don't see why they call them U anything now with birth year. Just call them 2003's.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on May 23, 2018 18:50:27 GMT -5
I don't see why they call them U anything now with birth year. Just call them 2003's. I agree, but it made it "easier" to line up with certain agegroup milestones - 4v4 - 7v7 -build out line -9v9 -no headers -11v11 -DA u12 etc -DA u13 with recommendation for 50% of minutes in a month (nobody follows) -DA u14+ substitution restrictions
|
|