Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did we go to age year... if clubs don't follow it

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why did we go to age year... if clubs don't follow it

    Why did we drop the bomb of age year rule; disrupt multiple teams and now to find out clubs don't follow it. Clubs / coaches are still combining ages to better there teams.

    Wasn't the whole Idea to develop talent age specific and if a player at the age was superior they would be pushed up the development ladder. ie. NEP to NPL to ECNL.

    Seems like the age year rule was and is a total waste of time.

    #2
    Who's not following it? I know kids from our club who were born, for example, from Aug to Dec in 2003 only play on 2003 teams, vs. 2004 teams

    Comment


      #3
      Our U16 team in NEFC has 01's and 02's

      Not sure about other clubs

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Why did we drop the bomb of age year rule; disrupt multiple teams and now to find out clubs don't follow it. Clubs / coaches are still combining ages to better there teams.

        Wasn't the whole Idea to develop talent age specific and if a player at the age was superior they would be pushed up the development ladder. ie. NEP to NPL to ECNL.

        Seems like the age year rule was and is a total waste of time.
        You can play up but you can't play down. Are you saying that you're coming across teams that are allowing older kids to play down or are you saying you don't agree that younger kids should play up?

        Comment


          #5
          Our entire team stayed intact with half the team being 2007 and the other half 2006 but obviously we have to play in u11 which some of the younger players have struggled in resulting in a poor record for the team that are playing most teams made up of entirely 2006 players. Makes a big difference, especially at this age.

          Comment


            #6
            I think the point being made here is that US Soccer mandated that all players should be playing with their age year peers. So to that point players should not be playing up a year; if that players is playing at a higher level than said player should be moved up to the next higher level team (NPL etc.) within the same age year...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              I think the point being made here is that US Soccer mandated that all players should be playing with their age year peers. So to that point players should not be playing up a year; if that players is playing at a higher level than said player should be moved up to the next higher level team (NPL etc.) within the same age year...
              And if they are the top player on the on the top team for their age group and aren't challenged? Some kids should play up a year. Also, US Soccer did not mandate that "all players" should be playing with their age year peers. They specifically talked about players being able to play up, but not down, in their announcement of the change.

              The age change was to align the age groups with the rest of the world and to simplify recruiting, which is evident in how we discuss the age groups now. We no longer need qualifiers to talk about what group kids are in. A 2005 is a 2005, even if they play up.

              Comment


                #8
                the whole point was to align a few 100 players that USSF cares about to international standards. The rest didn't need to make make the change but are now stuck with it. In both my kids' clubs (one boy, one girl) they've had issues with the older HS aged teams having enough players and having to combine or often ask for younger players to play because of SATs etc. Before you'd just have one team that had that issue because they were all juniors. Now you have multiple teams with that issue.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  the whole point was to align a few 100 players that USSF cares about to international standards. The rest didn't need to make make the change but are now stuck with it. In both my kids' clubs (one boy, one girl) they've had issues with the older HS aged teams having enough players and having to combine or often ask for younger players to play because of SATs etc. Before you'd just have one team that had that issue because they were all juniors. Now you have multiple teams with that issue.
                  This could make college recruiting more tricky too. Sophomores and juniors who are all 2000s are on the team but have different recruitment timelines. What happens to those born Aug - Dec if they don't have enough players to put together a team for their senior year? Do they just not have a team at all?

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    the whole point was to align a few 100 players that USSF cares about to international standards.
                    This wasn't the point at all. The DAP and NT teams were already aligned by birth year and have been for years. The point was to shift the kids getting the benefit of the relative age affect from the time they start playing soccer (previously the Aug.-Nov. born kids) to those who will be oldest on teams once they reach the DAP NT age levels (Jan.-Mar.) to maximize the strength of those players: (oldest + benefit from RAE since age 6) > (youngest + benefit from RAE since age 6). No point in doing this birth year shift at all if done at the older ages, had to be done just as players enter the system, which is at the youngest ages and usually Rec level to maximize the benefit.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Our entire team stayed intact with half the team being 2007 and the other half 2006 but obviously we have to play in u11 which some of the younger players have struggled in resulting in a poor record for the team that are playing most teams made up of entirely 2006 players. Makes a big difference, especially at this age.
                      Our teams have changed with the birth year but we played a team or 2 that stayed in tact, and like you said it wasn't pretty for those teams. They were much smaller in size and the score was not what anyone wanted to see.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        This wasn't the point at all. The DAP and NT teams were already aligned by birth year and have been for years. The point was to shift the kids getting the benefit of the relative age affect from the time they start playing soccer (previously the Aug.-Nov. born kids) to those who will be oldest on teams once they reach the DAP NT age levels (Jan.-Mar.) to maximize the strength of those players: (oldest + benefit from RAE since age 6) > (youngest + benefit from RAE since age 6). No point in doing this birth year shift at all if done at the older ages, had to be done just as players enter the system, which is at the youngest ages and usually Rec level to maximize the benefit.
                        All well and good but you're talking about a questionable benefit for even the highest level players and no benefit whatsoever for 99.99999999% of US players. To an NT level player the 6 months doesn't matter, they're just that much better. yes I know the studies but come on. Instead you've grades split up which makes less sense socially at the younger years/local programs when you want kids to really have fun while learning, and then big recruiting issues in the HS ages.

                        - not the op

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          This could make college recruiting more tricky too. Sophomores and juniors who are all 2000s are on the team but have different recruitment timelines. What happens to those born Aug - Dec if they don't have enough players to put together a team for their senior year? Do they just not have a team at all?
                          I've got a 2000 boy/junior and it is an issue. Some juniors are on a team with lots of seniors (checked out, barely have enough players), then the 2000 team also has sophomores for whom it's still a little early for recruiting - then what do they do next year when the older players are seniors and they're trying to be recruited? I imagine it's similar with the girls only they benefit from recruiting being almost a full year earlier so probably less of the senior-itis issue.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                            I think the point being made here is that US Soccer mandated that all players should be playing with their age year peers. So to that point players should not be playing up a year; if that players is playing at a higher level than said player should be moved up to the next higher level team (NPL etc.) within the same age year...
                            If that was the point then why does US Soccer have a 13 year old from SSS playing on the U16 national team? That would make them look a bit hypocritical, no?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              I've got a 2000 boy/junior and it is an issue. Some juniors are on a team with lots of seniors (checked out, barely have enough players), then the 2000 team also has sophomores for whom it's still a little early for recruiting - then what do they do next year when the older players are seniors and they're trying to be recruited? I imagine it's similar with the girls only they benefit from recruiting being almost a full year earlier so probably less of the senior-itis issue.
                              I've got a sophomore on a 2000 team. That's what I wonder too. Recruiting is going to be strange - almost none of our kids will play on the national team. My son wants to play in college. guess we're stuck with this change but it's frustrating

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X