|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 19, 2015 7:10:12 GMT -5
This from their page....
Rene Gonzalez @renepdxfutbol 16h16 hours ago
@usyouthsoccer has there been any decision made to start calendar year ages starting August 2016? Had heard 2017, now hearing 2016.
US Youth Soccer @usyouthsoccer 14h14 hours ago
@renepdxfutbol Per U.S. Soccer, 2016 is an optional year and 2017 is a mandatory change. Look for an official notice from us shortly
|
|
|
Post by volunteercoach on Aug 19, 2015 7:53:25 GMT -5
Since US Soccer is letting each state decide their implementation for 2016...has GA soccer said it will be mandatory for 2016?
It may be less chaotic to give clubs/players that flexible year to figure out what they will do. Like many have said before, smaller clubs will be most affected.
Side note: I have a late August birthday and was the youngest in my grade but the oldest on my club team. Hindsight, I wish I would have played with my birth year in terms of recruiting. So for me in the spring of 9th grade, I had both club soccer (U14) and varsity soccer.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Aug 19, 2015 8:13:22 GMT -5
Once US Youth Soccer makes their announcement...then GA soccer will tell us what to do I guess. I think they should implement it in 2016 so it allows a year to work out kinks before its mandatory. And I think that they should do all ages at once like a bandaid, half and half will just create more chaos. People wont be happy but will get over it.
From what i have heard, some clubs started on it this soccer season already....
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Aug 19, 2015 9:26:38 GMT -5
I think Florida has already started it. That's why there are no Spring RPL and ECNL games scheduled for U14.
|
|
|
Post by dreaddy on Aug 19, 2015 9:33:03 GMT -5
As I have stated before - calendar year is the way it used to be. 2016 or 2017 makes no difference. Maybe 2016 to get it over with. Whichever way we go it just needs to be done across he board in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 20, 2015 7:23:48 GMT -5
Once US Youth Soccer makes their announcement...then GA soccer will tell us what to do I guess. I think they should implement it in 2016 so it allows a year to work out kinks before its mandatory. And I think that they should do all ages at once like a bandaid, half and half will just create more chaos. People wont be happy but will get over it. From what i have heard, some clubs started on it this soccer season already.... I think whether it is mandatory or not next year, I think kids will move to their calendar years next tryouts. I don't see parents paying money for their kids born aug-dec to play down. Or it may be the breaking point for the parents and/or kid for soccer. Kids may move on to other sports: lacrosse, track, etc. where it is much less complicated.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 20, 2015 7:35:03 GMT -5
Since US Soccer is letting each state decide their implementation for 2016...has GA soccer said it will be mandatory for 2016? It may be less chaotic to give clubs/players that flexible year to figure out what they will do. Like many have said before, smaller clubs will be most affected. Side note: I have a late August birthday and was the youngest in my grade but the oldest on my club team. Hindsight, I wish I would have played with my birth year in terms of recruiting. So for me in the spring of 9th grade, I had both club soccer (U14) and varsity soccer. I agree that making 2016 an optional year would be better for the consumer. Give them a choice. I think this change will give an even bigger advantage to aug-dec birthdays for high school soccer.
|
|
shapo
Jr. Academy
Posts: 27
|
Post by shapo on Aug 20, 2015 9:00:01 GMT -5
Since US Soccer is letting each state decide their implementation for 2016...has GA soccer said it will be mandatory for 2016? It may be less chaotic to give clubs/players that flexible year to figure out what they will do. Like many have said before, smaller clubs will be most affected. Side note: I have a late August birthday and was the youngest in my grade but the oldest on my club team. Hindsight, I wish I would have played with my birth year in terms of recruiting. So for me in the spring of 9th grade, I had both club soccer (U14) and varsity soccer. I agree that making 2016 an optional year would be better for the consumer. Give them a choice. I think this change will give an even bigger advantage to aug-dec birthdays for high school soccer. How are the aug-dec kids advantaged in HS?
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Aug 20, 2015 11:46:51 GMT -5
I agree that making 2016 an optional year would be better for the consumer. Give them a choice. I think this change will give an even bigger advantage to aug-dec birthdays for high school soccer. How are the aug-dec kids advantaged in HS? They will be a year ahead in club compared to the other kids in their grade. This on top of being the oldest in their grade.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Aug 20, 2015 12:31:40 GMT -5
How are the aug-dec kids advantaged in HS? They will be a year ahead in club compared to the other kids in their grade. This on top of being the oldest in their grade. If you want to look at is as advantaged versus disadvantaged, the August-December 2010 kids, for instance, will be ahead in terms of club soccer of January through July 2011 kids with whom they will be playing school soccer. But they will be disadvantaged, especially those born October through December, in their soccer development as a result of playing with kids in club soccer that are nearly one year older than them (the January/February 2010 birthday kids). This is the birth order effect that has been described in multiple publications. Now, perhaps that disadvantage in the club environment can be mitigated in the school environment by their older age and longer exposure to club soccer. Up until the change to birth year, the August and September kids especially, at least in terms of early development, have received every benefit compared to especially the May-July kids (both club and school soccer).
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 24, 2015 15:31:54 GMT -5
some comments from Tab in www.socceramerica.com/article/65292/us-soccer-mandates-major-changes-altering-birth.html“This new calendar makes things easier for everyone. If you’re born in a certain year you belong in that certain age group. It also gets us on the same calendar with the rest of the world, so now it becomes easier to identify for U.S. national teams and everything else when it comes to international soccer.” The mandate will go into effect by August 2017. U.S. Soccer also believes it will provide clearer information on player birthdates to combat relative age effect (RAE) -- the selection bias that favors players who are more physically mature than their peers because they were born earlier in the year. U.S. Soccer says the birth-year registration initiative will not cause the dissolution of age-group based teams that already play together, “but will rather give players the opportunity to ‘play up’ with older age-groups.” “We are easing into it and working towards it,” Ramos said. “Best practices will come next year as we work towards 2017 and I think we’re doing it the best way by easing into it. You don’t want to get into scenarios where larger teams are immediately getting cut into smaller teams. “We at this point let them decide on their own how they manage the transition. Some clubs have already made the change starting this year, and are already ahead of the curve, which is great. In general, we have to give everyone the opportunity to get everyone comfortable with it, but it will come.” The U.S. Soccer Development Academy has been using the Jan. 1 cutoff since its launch in 2007
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 24, 2015 16:12:55 GMT -5
RAE effect still exists..
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Aug 24, 2015 16:25:28 GMT -5
RAE effect still exists.. Yes. Hard to imagine it will disappear just because of change to calendar year. Thoughtless comment by Ramos. It will just change months.
|
|
|
Post by soccerworld on Aug 24, 2015 16:28:15 GMT -5
I don't quite understand this comment either.....
U.S. Soccer says the birth-year registration initiative will not cause the dissolution of age-group based teams that already play together, “but will rather give players the opportunity to ‘play up’ with older age-groups.”
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Aug 24, 2015 16:32:25 GMT -5
Now it'll be the adjusted relative age effect
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 24, 2015 16:34:11 GMT -5
Ha!!
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Aug 24, 2015 16:55:07 GMT -5
I don't quite understand this comment either..... U.S. Soccer says the birth-year registration initiative will not cause the dissolution of age-group based teams that already play together, “but will rather give players the opportunity to ‘play up’ with older age-groups.” Because to keep a team of January 02 through July 02 players with their August 01 through December 01 teammates, the former will be playing against 01 calendar year teams instead of against 02 calendar year teams. In other words, if everyone keeps their teams the same for a while, nothing changes but they can say they are making a change for the betterment of development. I do not care that they make the change, in fact I kind of like club soccer not being on the (just as arbitrary) school calendar, but these lame reasons for doing it are, well, lame! They really want to do it for bookkeeping purposes, and there is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned. Just say it is happening and move on.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 24, 2015 18:43:53 GMT -5
With JK at the helm it's all a moot point as he will continue to lean towards German and European based Americans anyway. All of this change for maybe 10 players a year.
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Aug 24, 2015 18:52:35 GMT -5
I don't quite understand this comment either..... U.S. Soccer says the birth-year registration initiative will not cause the dissolution of age-group based teams that already play together, “but will rather give players the opportunity to ‘play up’ with older age-groups.” Because to keep a team of January 02 through July 02 players with their August 01 through December 01 teammates, the former will be playing against 01 calendar year teams instead of against 02 calendar year teams. In other words, if everyone keeps their teams the same for a while, nothing changes but they can say they are making a change for the betterment of development. I do not care that they make the change, in fact I kind of like club soccer not being on the (just as arbitrary) school calendar, but these lame reasons for doing it are, well, lame! They really want to do it for bookkeeping purposes, and there is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned. Just say it is happening and move on. Not to mention that if, for example, you have a January 02 birthday (U14 now) and you play up once they make the change, you will essentially skip your U15 season which seems kind of dumb from a recruiting perspective.
|
|
|
Post by silverback on Aug 25, 2015 10:56:08 GMT -5
“This new calendar makes things easier for everyone. ........ It also gets us on the same calendar with the rest of the world, so now it becomes easier to identify for U.S. national teams and everything else when it comes to international soccer.”
Still don't get it. How many kids really benefit because it makes it "easier to identify US national teams". How many kids are really going to play on a US national team? There are a lot more kids whose dream of professional soccer will go through college and this just makes it harder to identify the best players at each recruiting class.
And regardless of what age buckets you create, some kids will get screwed and some will benefit, no way around it, but I don't buy the argument to align with "international soccer". We owe it to our children to prepare them for college and hopefully put them in the best position to get a scholarship while playing the game they love.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 11:00:33 GMT -5
Here's why I am against it. My child will lose her spot on an R3PL team. She is a Feb birthday so she will be one of the oldest players on the next younger team. That team is not R3PL. They will replace her with younger players from the next older team, which is not R3PL. This will combat 'excellence' and replace it with much needed 'mediocrity'.
So thanks!
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 25, 2015 11:22:33 GMT -5
Here's why I am against it. My child will lose her spot on an R3PL team. She is a Feb birthday so she will be one of the oldest players on the next younger team. That team is not R3PL. They will replace her with younger players from the next older team, which is not R3PL. This will combat 'excellence' and replace it with much needed 'mediocrity'.
So thanks! Why doesn't she play up? Is she better than some of the kids with an Aug-Dec birthday?
|
|
|
Post by guest on Aug 25, 2015 11:57:16 GMT -5
Here's why I am against it. My child will lose her spot on an R3PL team. She is a Feb birthday so she will be one of the oldest players on the next younger team. That team is not R3PL. They will replace her with younger players from the next older team, which is not R3PL. This will combat 'excellence' and replace it with much needed 'mediocrity'.
So thanks! Why doesn't she play up? Is she better than some of the kids with an Aug-Dec birthday? Well they may end up doing that. But that changes the calculation a little. A feb birthday now competes with players up to 6 months older (Aug). If you play up a year, you would be competing with players up to 13 months older (Jan). So a team that tries to stay together by having roughly half their players play up, will be at a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by th1976 on Aug 28, 2015 11:20:18 GMT -5
Why doesn't she play up? Is she better than some of the kids with an Aug-Dec birthday? Well they may end up doing that. But that changes the calculation a little. A feb birthday now competes with players up to 6 months older (Aug). If you play up a year, you would be competing with players up to 13 months older (Jan). So a team that tries to stay together by having roughly half their players play up, will be at a competitive disadvantage. Not necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by youthsoccerdad on Aug 28, 2015 13:05:27 GMT -5
Why doesn't she play up? Is she better than some of the kids with an Aug-Dec birthday? Well they may end up doing that. But that changes the calculation a little. A feb birthday now competes with players up to 6 months older (Aug). If you play up a year, you would be competing with players up to 13 months older (Jan). So a team that tries to stay together by having roughly half their players play up, will be at a competitive disadvantage. My point was her not the team. The team is going to need to split up. My point was specifically if your daughter is on of the top 5-6 kids on the team then just have her play up with friends if that is important.
|
|