|
|
Post by soccerdad76 on May 22, 2019 10:40:35 GMT -5
I just had an idea... borrowed from the Olympic age restriction model. Each team can have up to three players from the old Aug-Jul age split. So a 2006 team can have 3 players born between aug 2005 and dec 2005.
Everybody wins?!? Kids (especially at younger ages) are likely to be smaller, check. Kids are unhappy being split with classmates, check. Still based on birth certificates and not subjective bio metrics, check.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on May 22, 2019 12:24:27 GMT -5
What's odd is only DA currently allows kids to play down with the proper clearances. Does ECNL?
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on May 22, 2019 15:15:18 GMT -5
Other than what i have heard about playing down 2 trap year kids in Spring for U14, i believe the answer is no.
|
|
|
|
Post by GameOfThrow-ins on May 23, 2019 22:09:52 GMT -5
Well it didn’t take long for the local clubs to start gaming the bio-banding process. I only know of 1 of the 3 local clubs that has full DA that hasn’t figured it out yet, and even though that 1 club is not who you think it is, I’m sure they will catch on. It goes like this: pull down 2 older players, not for developmental purposes, but for wins, politics, and recruiting. I’ve spoken with folks from these 2 clubs - some bragging about having 2 older ringers and trying to leverage it to get other top players on that team, and the opposite group talking about who these play-down players’ fathers are and how very talented kids are getting shafted and released. As it is being implemented now, bio-banding is Not. A. Good. Thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccerdad on May 23, 2019 22:35:04 GMT -5
Well it didn’t take long for the local clubs to start gaming the bio-banding process. I only know of 1 of the 3 local clubs that has full DA that hasn’t figured it out yet, and even though that 1 club is not who you think it is, I’m sure they will catch on. It goes like this: pull down 2 older players, not for developmental purposes, but for wins, politics, and recruiting. I’ve spoken with folks from these 2 clubs - some bragging about having 2 older ringers and trying to leverage it to get other top players on that team, and the opposite group talking about who these play-down players’ fathers are and how very talented kids are getting shafted and released. As it is being implemented now, bio-banding is Not. A. Good. Thing. Im confused - Is this a problem with bio-banding, or a problem with DA rules ? Or with club ethics. Or something else entirely? |
|
|
|
Post by GameOfThrow-ins on May 23, 2019 23:19:46 GMT -5
Ethics. Taking something meant to aid in player development and using it in ways for which it was not designed.
|
|
|
|
Post by footballer on May 24, 2019 4:54:16 GMT -5
Well it didn’t take long for the local clubs to start gaming the bio-banding process. I only know of 1 of the 3 local clubs that has full DA that hasn’t figured it out yet, and even though that 1 club is not who you think it is, I’m sure they will catch on. It goes like this: pull down 2 older players, not for developmental purposes, but for wins, politics, and recruiting. I’ve spoken with folks from these 2 clubs - some bragging about having 2 older ringers and trying to leverage it to get other top players on that team, and the opposite group talking about who these play-down players’ fathers are and how very talented kids are getting shafted and released. As it is being implemented now, bio-banding is Not. A. Good. Thing. I disagree, bio-banding or playing up is a good thing, but like everything else, there are pros and cons, and I believe there are more pros than cons. I always like to keep that in mind when analyzing these sort of things but I understand others like to feed on the negative side of things, which is okay. I believe our forum general soccerhouse can track down an article that was shared a while back about the benefits of bio-banding, if anyone is interested or I will post it when I find time to dig through the net. However, I agree with you, the capitalist and political driven soccer eco-system here in this country makes it very cut throat for kids. We can go deeper than just bio-banding on the various issues that is affecting us soccer, if we are talking ethics or what not and believe it or not, bio-banding is on the bottom part of the list. A lot more bigger fish to fry. In thriving soccer eco-systems, playing up and down to nurture and develop talent is normal during the youth stage of life. |
|
|
|
Post by GameOfThrow-ins on May 24, 2019 5:04:43 GMT -5
I thought the same thing and I still believe it is a good thing in theory. However, socialism sounds good in theory too. The fact is the only reason there are “bigger fish to fry” is because it is only allowed in DA. If this was happening throughout Georgia soccer, people’s heads would be exploding. AND, please stop conflating bio-banding with playing up - they are NOT the same thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by footballer on May 24, 2019 6:09:49 GMT -5
I thought the same thing and I still believe it is a good thing in theory. However, socialism sounds good in theory too. The fact is the only reason there are “bigger fish to fry” is because it is only allowed in DA. If this was happening throughout Georgia soccer, people’s heads would be exploding. AND, please stop conflating bio-banding with playing up - they are NOT the same thing! Not saying it is same thing exactly, but technically similar, however the reason for either one is same. To nurture and develop talent in a more balanced environment. Everything is based on a theory or an idea. We just need to keep updating the good ideas or "theories" if you prefer term to use that instead. All I'm saying, so many silly changes and rules in ussocer which includes DA to GA soccer and everything in between. People are quick to shizat on the ideas that actually make sense and beneficial to certain demographics whether talent or resources. They prefer the status quo, no finger pointing here, if this hits you the wrong way, it may be you. There have been strides and some improvement but honestly we are light years behind in soccer ecosystems if you think of the population and resources we have here. I rest my case, you are free to state yours! have a great morning . |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on May 24, 2019 8:28:14 GMT -5
I've seen many many tiny kids that at all levels would benefit greatly by bio-banding, not just DA. I'd argue that there are more kids outside of DA that would benefit from this than in DA.
I've mentioned before another better option often is not to bioband, but this is novel concept --- play on the top team thats not in DA. many many many of the top u16, top 15 teams that aren't DA --- some people just can't live with littly johnny not being considered the best and playing DA.....
|
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on May 24, 2019 9:09:48 GMT -5
I thought the same thing and I still believe it is a good thing in theory. However, socialism sounds good in theory too. The fact is the only reason there are “bigger fish to fry” is because it is only allowed in DA. If this was happening throughout Georgia soccer, people’s heads would be exploding. AND, please stop conflating bio-banding with playing up - they are NOT the same thing! I don't think most understand what bio-banding is - maybe myself included. It's supposed to be about grouping players by maturation and where they are now (percentage-wise) to where the predicted height/weight will be based on the parents – not playing based on the players chronological age. If done correctly, you could have players playing together within a 2-year swing (14-16 as an example... maybe some big 14s with some small 16s but their predicated height/weight based on their parents are about the same). This is intended to push coaches to start recognizing the potential technical (yet smaller) players that may be overlooked due to the big, fast athletes being the obvious eye catchers. Is this what's being done now in regards to DA? I know AU has had two kids play down one age group but have they actually bio-banded those players (I've not seen them to know if they are small for the age group. Also, has AU used the metrics such as getting parents height, etc. and are they going by the predictors?) Do other DA clubs do this? And is there a DA rule that allows x-number of players to "play down" and is there a basis for doing so (such as being "bio-banded" or size, etc.)? If someone knows the specifics, please share. Playing up is a bit different and that's not necessarily bio-banding. I've always heard coaches say "if you are good enough, you are old enough". So playing up, I would assume the player is doing so because coaches believe they need to be tested and needs the added challenge. |
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccerdad on May 24, 2019 9:42:29 GMT -5
If done correctly, you could have players playing together within a 2-year swing (14-16 as an example... maybe some big 14s with some small 16s but their predicated height/weight based on their parents are about the same). This is intended to push coaches to start recognizing the potential technical (yet smaller) players that may be overlooked due to the big, fast athletes being the obvious eye catchers. So why did US soccer switch to a birth year system, only to then try to implement bio-banding? The whole thing smells like "we don't know what we are doing"... |
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad76 on May 24, 2019 9:49:58 GMT -5
If done correctly, you could have players playing together within a 2-year swing (14-16 as an example... maybe some big 14s with some small 16s but their predicated height/weight based on their parents are about the same). This is intended to push coaches to start recognizing the potential technical (yet smaller) players that may be overlooked due to the big, fast athletes being the obvious eye catchers. So why did US soccer switch to a birth year system, only to then try to implement bio-banding? The whole thing smells like "we don't know what we are doing"... in my lifetime it was birth year until the late 80s (roughly), then switched to school calendar (aug-jul), now back to birth year a few years ago. One of the stated reasons was that international competition is by birth year, so it makes sense to groom that way. Bio-banding is outside of the birth year / school calendar argument though. It’s a 12 month band either way... somebody will always be the youngest and smallest. |
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on May 24, 2019 9:51:56 GMT -5
If done correctly, you could have players playing together within a 2-year swing (14-16 as an example... maybe some big 14s with some small 16s but their predicated height/weight based on their parents are about the same). This is intended to push coaches to start recognizing the potential technical (yet smaller) players that may be overlooked due to the big, fast athletes being the obvious eye catchers. So why did US soccer switch to a birth year system, only to then try to implement bio-banding? The whole thing smells like "we don't know what we are doing"... From the video, one does not replace the other. They are intended to be used to compliment each other... bio-band sometimes and use chronological age as the base. As to the birth-year switch, I believe the intention was to bring everyone in line. ODP, DA, US youth teams, etc. - all of the "upper levels" of soccer were already on the birth-year. The stated purpose of making everyone do it was to streamline across all levels, align with what the rest of the world was doing (the FIFA member nations), and lessen the relative age effect. In reality, it just shifted the relative age effect and you didn't need to go to birth year for "lesser levels" like Rec, etc. But that's another story and as evidenced by this forum - everyone has an opinion on that topic... |
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccerdad on May 24, 2019 9:53:45 GMT -5
So why did US soccer switch to a birth year system, only to then try to implement bio-banding? The whole thing smells like "we don't know what we are doing"... in my lifetime it was birth year until the late 80s (roughly), then switched to school calendar (aug-jul), now back to birth year a few years ago. One of the stated reasons was that international competition is by birth year, so it makes sense to groom that way. Bio-banding is outside of the birth year / school calendar argument though. It’s a 12 month band either way... somebody will always be the youngest and smallest. Makes sense... |
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 24, 2019 11:01:49 GMT -5
Count me as one of those that felt they didn't need to switch to birth year. I agree that all it does is switch the relative age effect, but I am saddened by my 9 year old and her best friend in school that would both like to play together on the same team. I don't consider either one of them as having any thought at that age that they should be separated so that they could eventually make a DA team or potentially a National team.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlsoccerdad on May 24, 2019 11:10:25 GMT -5
Count me as one of those that felt they didn't need to switch to birth year. I agree that all it does is switch the relative age effect, but I am saddened by my 9 year old and her best friend in school that would both like to play together on the same team. I don't consider either one of them as having any thought at that age that they should be separated so that they could eventually make a DA team or potentially a National team. I agree that kids at that age don't understand it. And that sucks. I also was very surprised to see parents hold their "early birth date" kids back 1 or 2 years so that they can be the biggest / best athletes in grade 7 / 8 / 9 etc. Call me naive (or old), but in my day there were no freshmen with a drivers license. I have seen 2 driving freshmen, and know that 1 was intentionally held back for sports. Gah. So maybe birth year changes had to be done because parents want to game the system ... ? |
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on May 24, 2019 12:50:12 GMT -5
Count me as one of those that felt they didn't need to switch to birth year. I agree that all it does is switch the relative age effect, but I am saddened by my 9 year old and her best friend in school that would both like to play together on the same team. I don't consider either one of them as having any thought at that age that they should be separated so that they could eventually make a DA team or potentially a National team. The younger one can always play up and then they'll be together. |
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on May 24, 2019 14:12:16 GMT -5
Count me as one of those that felt they didn't need to switch to birth year. I agree that all it does is switch the relative age effect, but I am saddened by my 9 year old and her best friend in school that would both like to play together on the same team. I don't consider either one of them as having any thought at that age that they should be separated so that they could eventually make a DA team or potentially a National team. The younger one can always play up and then they'll be together. That's seems like a simple answer to very situational problem with lots of variables... so it's not a simple solution. |
|
|
|
Post by atv on May 24, 2019 16:52:21 GMT -5
What's odd is only DA currently allows kids to play down with the proper clearances. Does ECNL? No |
|
|
|
Post by bogan on Aug 5, 2020 18:47:59 GMT -5
Did this idea (bio band) die with DA?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Aug 5, 2020 19:41:16 GMT -5
Ecnl allows the trapped u15 players to play down in the spring I believe.
|
|
