|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Apr 13, 2020 11:11:00 GMT -5
FYI - still disappointed in glen crooks for trolling twitter.
Maybe I’m wrong - but shouldn’t be have a higher standard?
Maybe I’m also off base, because he might have or plans to discuss in his radio show - not really sure.
I don’t think he has mentioned anything else since the original tweet
|
|
|
|
Post by areyousure on Apr 13, 2020 11:55:33 GMT -5
Agreed, no need to create panic in kids that they may not have a league anymore when they are already nervous about their near future. During this difficult time why throw out something that may or not be true just so he can say.. I knew it first!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmonkey on Apr 13, 2020 11:58:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 13, 2020 12:01:53 GMT -5
That article has been out for days and the April 11th date is actually not true because I saw it on April 10th. I also did not see an update between when I saw it on the 10th and the 11th so I don't know why they have it listed as the 11th. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Apr 13, 2020 12:06:56 GMT -5
Yea, read the soccerwire article the day it was tweeted originally -
when I saw that Charles Boehm didn't write it, I honestly didn't pay much attention to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by atv on Apr 13, 2020 12:11:16 GMT -5
Glenn Crooks tweet came out Thursday night. There hasn’t been any other credible rumors since then. The timing was wrong as it didn’t happen Friday. However, I tend to believe there is some credibility here given the source but only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Apr 13, 2020 13:22:15 GMT -5
On the girls side, even if DA folds, I bet DPL would become the defacto replacement. Probably even create 2 tiers (old DPL and DA replacement). USSF would likely even sanction and sponsor such a move (but without putting 9 million dollars a year into it).
|
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Apr 13, 2020 13:25:18 GMT -5
Also...from a college recruiter...
I don't think that it applies as much to the top-25 to 50 schools, where the student athletes are knocking on your door, but for the other schools who are looking for diamonds in the rough, watching a team at a showcase or watching film trying to pick out players 2nd/3rd tier players to recruit, its easier when you know what grade in HS you're looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Apr 13, 2020 13:50:16 GMT -5
Also - all of this argument about 'playing with your friends from school' is bullshizat, and you all know it. Once you leave the local rec league (where you'd actually be playing with the kids from your school) and go to club.. that goes out the window. Neither of my kids has had a classmate on their team once they went to academy. I think in all the years my kids have played, they've only had one or two teammates who had classmates on the teams. When 600,000+ US kids dropped out of organized soccer a few years ago (when the age mandate was instituted) it wasn't 600,000 "elite" players. It was hundreds of thousands of 5 - 10 year olds, whose parents signed them up for other sports. This isn't an argument about the effect of the rule on "elite" players who have parents that will pay thousands of dollars and fly their kids all over the country to play kickball and call it elite soccer. This isn't about the unicorns, many of whom play up two years, play with boys, are home schooled, and are well known within the NT scouting world. This is about the effect a stupid USSF rule has had on the entirety of youth soccer... and no one can explain why it was a good idea, nor why it shouldn't be overturned during this massive shutdown. As oracle mentioned above.. rec is 2-year age groups.. so a much smaller number would have been effected.
..and yes, I'm talking academy/select because I highly doubt that anyone hanging out on a soccer forum is someone deeply engaged in rec soccer.
I'm curious where this 600k number came from, as I haven't seen it brought up here before.
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 13, 2020 13:52:38 GMT -5
On the girls side, even if DA folds, I bet DPL would become the defacto replacement. Probably even create 2 tiers (old DPL and DA replacement). USSF would likely even sanction and sponsor such a move (but without putting 9 million dollars a year into it). DPL is sanctioned by NSSSA. I wouldn't think there is a benefit to trying to make a real league out of DPL. I'm sure us club(ECNL) and USYS(EDP, etc) are working on infrastructure for DA clubs/teams |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Apr 13, 2020 13:56:42 GMT -5
Another interesting tweet
This really is a rabbit hole...(completely unsubstantiated)
And this (also unsubstantiated) And another
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Apr 13, 2020 14:59:51 GMT -5
I personally haven't really asked around much -- didn't want to put anyone in an uncomfortable position.
My guess is it is about terminating the remainder of the season for the boys --
and possibly termination forever for the girls.
Once Courage pulled out of DA for the girls, that shows trouble -- unless of course they had insider info......
|
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Apr 13, 2020 15:18:41 GMT -5
When 600,000+ US kids dropped out of organized soccer a few years ago (when the age mandate was instituted) it wasn't 600,000 "elite" players. It was hundreds of thousands of 5 - 10 year olds, whose parents signed them up for other sports. This isn't an argument about the effect of the rule on "elite" players who have parents that will pay thousands of dollars and fly their kids all over the country to play kickball and call it elite soccer. This isn't about the unicorns, many of whom play up two years, play with boys, are home schooled, and are well known within the NT scouting world. This is about the effect a stupid USSF rule has had on the entirety of youth soccer... and no one can explain why it was a good idea, nor why it shouldn't be overturned during this massive shutdown. As oracle mentioned above.. rec is 2-year age groups.. so a much smaller number would have been effected.
..and yes, I'm talking academy/select because I highly doubt that anyone hanging out on a soccer forum is someone deeply engaged in rec soccer.
I'm curious where this 600k number came from, as I haven't seen it brought up here before.
I posted it in an earlier message. Scroll down to the Team Sports Participation Trends table. I get that we are all concerned about our own kids, and I agree, there probably aren't a lot of AYSO parents lurking here... but I'll bet most of us started with AYSO, and that is my point. Organized youth soccer lost 600,000+ participants right around the launch of birth year mandate. A few years from now it is safe to assume that some small percentage of those kids will be D1 athletes in other sports. Was all of it due to the rule change? I don't know. Is soccer horribly ruined because of that? No. Is the USMNT less likely to qualify for the next World Cup because of it? No way to tell. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it was/is a good idea and who it serves (other than lazy USSF scouts) going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 13, 2020 16:02:13 GMT -5
As oracle mentioned above.. rec is 2-year age groups.. so a much smaller number would have been effected.
..and yes, I'm talking academy/select because I highly doubt that anyone hanging out on a soccer forum is someone deeply engaged in rec soccer.
I'm curious where this 600k number came from, as I haven't seen it brought up here before.
I posted it in an earlier message. Scroll down to the Team Sports Participation Trends table. I get that we are all concerned about our own kids, and I agree, there probably aren't a lot of AYSO parents lurking here... but I'll bet most of us started with AYSO, and that is my point. Organized youth soccer lost 600,000+ participants right around the launch of birth year mandate. A few years from now it is safe to assume that some small percentage of those kids will be D1 athletes in other sports. Was all of it due to the rule change? I don't know. Is soccer horribly ruined because of that? No. Is the USMNT less likely to qualify for the next World Cup because of it? No way to tell. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it was/is a good idea and who it serves (other than lazy USSF scouts) going forward. Why does shifting the range 4 months benefit lazy USSF scouts. Does it also benefit lazy Spanish FA scouts? Not saying they arent lazy or that is doesnt benefit them. Just want to know what the benefit is. Right now, my kids play with kids from their grade and the grade lower. If the switch was made they'd likely stay on their team, itd just be a little tougher. It would be good for them. If they dropped to 2nd team, as happened to one already, that gives them incentive to try harder and/or hopefully have still have some fun. |
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on Apr 13, 2020 16:12:57 GMT -5
whispers (none of the charts say what they think it does)
|
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Apr 13, 2020 16:40:26 GMT -5
sighs... why won't these guys give one good reason to keep the mandate? The only reason the rule exists is to make the identification and training of USSF target unicorns easier, period. This is not Europe, or Brazil. We don't sell our young children to professional academies. We try and raise them right, and (most of us) try to see them off to college, a system, obviously, organized by school year eligibility. There isn't a single college coach in America that believes the birth year mandate makes their job easier. There isn't one mom of a six year old, who thinks this rule benefits her kid. You are unable to articulate one legitimate reason this rule exists. as for the numbers... www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/sports/world-cup/soccer-youth-decline.htmlYouth Soccer Participation Has Fallen Significantly in America July 14, 2018 CHICAGO — With its gables, turrets and iron railing, U.S. Soccer House — as the mansion housing the U.S. Soccer Federation is known — looks more like a fortress than the headquarters of a major sports organization. It is fitting: The federation is on the defensive. It is bad enough that the men’s national team failed to qualify for this summer’s World Cup, a fact the federation was reminded of daily as the tournament in Russia dazzled global audiences on its way to crowning a new champion Sunday. The real threat, however, to its mission to make soccer one of America’s pre-eminent sports is here at home, where youth players are abandoning the game in alarming numbers. Over the past three years, the percentage of 6- to 12-year-olds playing soccer regularly has dropped nearly 14 percent, to 2.3 million players, according to a study by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, which has analyzed youth athletic trends for 40 years. The number of children who touched a soccer ball even once during the year, in organized play or otherwise, also has fallen significantly. >>>>> ...should I keep going, or can you just answer the question? |
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Apr 13, 2020 17:23:00 GMT -5
I think the biggest reason to keep the birth year mandate is simple... we just had a massive upheaval when they changed to it.. just 4 years ago. Let's say that even HALF of that 600k number claimed above is correct.. how many more would leave when their current teams break up?
The thing that upset the kids I know about it wasn't that they weren't going to be playing with school friends.. its that the existing teams were blown up, and they weren't going to be playing with their SOCCER friends.
|
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Apr 13, 2020 17:40:43 GMT -5
By that logic it is clear USSF should keep DA programs going. The upheaval would just be too much to bear.
But thanks for at least clarifying your reasoning.
|
|
|
|
Post by oraclesfriend on Apr 13, 2020 17:56:09 GMT -5
By that logic it is clear USSF should keep DA programs going. The upheaval would just be too much to bear. But thanks for at least clarifying your reasoning. What grinch says PLUS the fact that school year is not the same everywhere so if you are going to go back (which I think won't change people back because people haven't left for that reason...they left because kids aren't playing sports period...not just soccer...all sports participation dropped) I think you need to have the states do it based up THEIR own school year schedule. Other sports don't use school year and they have no issues with participation. I don't see how kids who have touched a soccer ball once or even under 26 times (I guess that number is supposed to represent a season) is relevant. Yes it is good to see kids try it but I doubt the 1 timers are not continuing on because of the birth year mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on Apr 13, 2020 18:34:34 GMT -5
You're not getting any "reasons" because you're not wanting to see them. The two above, for example, have been stated previously in this thread (while you were asking for reasons). Your charts don't pan out. Your articles don't say anything about the BYM being the reason for the drop in participation. Nor do they address all the years prior to the BYM that had drops in participation (or the fact that overall sport participation dropped - and those sports didn't have a BYM). Sooooooo...
|
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Apr 13, 2020 18:47:54 GMT -5
Oraclesfriend, that's the only semi-valid reason I've heard to not set a cut off date by school grade - that not all states have the same school cut off date. Before the birth year mandate of course the cut off date for youth soccer was 8/1. My daughter's club would allow kids who were in an older grade but had August or September birthdays to play up with their grade, even if they weren't top team players. Every kid I knew in this situation took advantage of exception because they wanted to play with their classmates. Kids who were held back or started late of coures because they had June or July birthdays were out of luck.
In terms of what Grinch said, while yes some more kids could possibly quit if they their current team is affected by changing the cut off date back, I don't think that's a valid reason for keeping an inferior system in place. I think there would be gains (or fewer losses as it sounds like fewer kids are participating in sports overall anyway) in the long run and that the benefits to 8th graders and 12th graders with fall birthdays would be worth it. 8th graders who have fall birthdays are 14 - I'd argue 14 is a pretty important year in terms of development and many of those kids aren't getting the same level of training and competition they had in the fall and in previous years.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanatic21 on Apr 13, 2020 18:54:57 GMT -5
You're not getting any "reasons" because you're not wanting to see them. The two above, for example, have been stated previously in this thread (while you were asking for reasons). Your charts don't pan out. Your articles don't say anything about the BYM being the reason for the drop in participation. Nor do they address all the years prior to the BYM that had drops in participation (or the fact that overall sport participation dropped - and those sports didn't have a BYM). Sooooooo... Sorry soccernotfootball, but he's definitely not the one who is having trouble seeing. Did you get a chance to reread the articles you posted earlier so that you could see what they really say? They didn't say half of the things you claimed they did. |
|
|
|
Post by soccernotfootball on Apr 13, 2020 19:02:42 GMT -5
Every word.
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 13, 2020 19:04:32 GMT -5
Let see if this works. Aspen Institute used that SLIA data in its effort to stop young kids from quitting sports:  Edit: note it's only age 6-12 |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Apr 13, 2020 20:13:43 GMT -5
My only issue with bio-banding is that USSF created it after the birth-year mandate but it only applied to USSF DA. Similar to DA's "you can't play school soccer unless you go to a small private school and you can play with a waiver blah blah blah"...rule. The solution is bio-banding across all ages up to U18/U19. A flexible 4-5 month window where a player can register to play down with their school year between August-December. So an implementation of BOTH standards simultaneously. Preferably play in your age year, but with waivers to play down with school year. Waivers/exceptions. Simple stuff.
And again, this is all within the US (not international), and below MLS/USL academies. This of course doesn't need to apply to the highest levels of play.
With other sports is there more of a school focus? American football, basketball, etc? In HS, as a junior, yes, there's other older juniors, but you're also competing against (a few) freshmen and sophomores.
Anyways, ECNL composite was created to deal with this, so there's a solution for some of the ones who fall through the birth-year-mandate cracks.
Club Lacrosse tournaments are usually done in graduation year brackets. Rec is not. Rec has four divisions for grades 1-8. Big issue with grade year brackets are the parents that hold their kid back a year or two for athletic reasons. That’s how you get 15 year olds playing middle school and 19 year olds playing high school. There is a kid who plays lacrosse at my sons club who is a grade lower but actually older than my son. |
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Apr 13, 2020 20:36:58 GMT -5
Let see if this works. Aspen Institute used that SLIA data in its effort to stop young kids from quitting sports: Edit: note it's only age 6-12 9.3% in 2013 to 7.4% in 2018. That's a 20% drop in participation. But, I'm glad these guys didn't see any decreased participation in their neighborhood... Unfortunately, the mighty USSF's plans to make soccer the preeminent sport in the US seem to be going about as well as their ability to qualify a male team for the World Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by atlfutboldad on Apr 13, 2020 20:53:11 GMT -5
Lol. I honestly don't think they should change the classifications. Birth year is great baseline...and then allow those born in the final 5 months to bio-band down (primary team). Simple stuff. Its just means they need to check both year AND month of birth (*gasp* I know).
Its not like U12/U13/U14 back then made sense anyways. You would have 12 year olds playing "under 12".
|
|
|
|
Post by footyfan on Apr 13, 2020 21:01:40 GMT -5
Let see if this works. Aspen Institute used that SLIA data in its effort to stop young kids from quitting sports: Edit: note it's only age 6-12 9.3% in 2013 to 7.4% in 2018. That's a 20% drop in participation. But, I'm glad these guys didn't see any decreased participation in their neighborhood... Unfortunately, the mighty USSF's plans to make soccer the preeminent sport in the US seem to be going about as well as their ability to qualify a male team for the World Cup. I'm going to give you a chance to look at the data a little longer. I think you might have got your head when you fell. |
|
|
|
Post by straightred on Apr 13, 2020 22:25:32 GMT -5
Enlighten me, please. I guess I'm just dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistergrinch on Apr 14, 2020 8:28:46 GMT -5
Even with that drop - it's still 2.2MM kids participating, putting it below only Baseball and Basketball (no idea why they have bicycling, as I doubt they're referring to it as an actual sport.. but 'look at suzie ride her bike!')
|
|
