Birth year change is bad for kids and the sport

[Unregistered]

What's the other side, for real? All anyone heard is that the rest of the world (which doesn't have college soccer as a focus) does it and that scouting for youth national teams will somehow become easier. I don't think it's nearly as negatively consequential as some fear. That doesn't mean there was any compelling reason for the change--except maybe for soccer bureaucrats to act like they have "vision" and "direction."

Where have you been the past 5 months? This has been explained over and over. USSF has to align the RAE advantage with the rest of the world and they need to start at the very youngest ages (not when kids start ODP or academy, as then they've already lost 6-8 years of that advantage). Why would USSF want their teams to go into international competitions at any sort of disadvantage?

Yes, this sucks for your average ability Aug-Dec birthday kid, who may have had a little bit of a boost from RAE in the past, but now may end up quitting soccer a little sooner than the rest of the average players (my kid has a Dec. 24th birthday and is small to boot, so he is a worst case scenario). But for those real fall born standouts, this change will have little affect on them and they'll end up the same place either way.

[Unregistered]

I understand not being happy if you're the "stuck" 8th grader. The "stuck" 12th grader is a non-issue- the leagues are U18/19 so you should be OK (although perhaps not eligible for some non-league events). Lots of people seem to be most upset with the displacement, but at least as a one-time thing, it's a good thing from a development perspective to have your kid get moved out of their comfort zone- some new kids, maybe a new coach, etc.

[Unregistered]

People you do realize that most states have an Dec 31st cut off date for entering school right??? Massachusetts just refuses to change the entry date for Kindergarten not US Club Soccer problem in my opinion...

Here you go, fool:

July 31 -- Hawaii, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota
Aug. 1 -- Arkansas, Indiana
Aug. 15 -- Tennessee
Aug. 31 -- Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico, North Carolina, Washington
Sept. 1 -- Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Sept. 10 -- Montana
Sept. 15 -- Iowa, Wyoming
Sept. 30 -- District of Columbia, Louisiana, Nevada, Virginia
Oct. 1 -- Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan
Oct. 15 -- Maine
Jan. 1 -- Connecticut
Local school districts decide in -- Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont.

Source: Education Commission of the States

[Unregistered]

I understand not being happy if you're the "stuck" 8th grader. The "stuck" 12th grader is a non-issue- the leagues are U18/19 so you should be OK (although perhaps not eligible for some non-league events). Lots of people seem to be most upset with the displacement, but at least as a one-time thing, it's a good thing from a development perspective to have your kid get moved out of their comfort zone- some new kids, maybe a new coach, etc.

I think it is more of an Aug- Dec 11th grader issue. I remember reading here that for example, the Stars had like 31 players and Scorpions 28 who are currently playing ECNL in the 98/99 birthyears which will be combined next year. If are not committed by end of Sophomore year you are running a huge risk going into Junior year if you do not make that top team. I would assume all clubs have similar demographics. And before you starting yapping that those uncommitted players are not worthy anyhow, it seems as if they are going to force earlier decisions because of this which benefits no one. The biggest disadvantage are those holding out hope for Ivy's .

[Unregistered]

I am trying to wrap my brain around this age group change. Why do I feel this is worse for development because in the old system players at lets say U13, the top players were your August to December (02) players and the January to July (03) players were playing up to made them stronger. In the new system it puts everybody back on an even playing field with the rest of the world. In the old system we had the January to July players playing up when it came to the birth year ID camps? Does this make sense or am I missing the picture.

[Unregistered]

I think it is more of an Aug- Dec 11th grader issue. I remember reading here that for example, the Stars had like 31 players and Scorpions 28 who are currently playing ECNL in the 98/99 birthyears which will be combined next year. If are not committed by end of Sophomore year you are running a huge risk going into Junior year if you do not make that top team. I would assume all clubs have similar demographics. And before you starting yapping that those uncommitted players are not worthy anyhow, it seems as if they are going to force earlier decisions because of this which benefits no one. The biggest disadvantage are those holding out hope for Ivy's .

This comment seems to support an earlier suggestion that they should have allowed this birth year change to "mature" into the system. From Post #12 "...USSF should have implemented this change at u14 and below. Allowing the changes to mature into the system would have proven less disruptive and ensured kids had a place to play for their junior and senior years of high school"

[Unregistered]

This comment seems to support an earlier suggestion that they should have allowed this birth year change to "mature" into the system. From Post #12 "...USSF should have implemented this change at u14 and below. Allowing the changes to mature into the system would have proven less disruptive and ensured kids had a place to play for their junior and senior years of high school"

Most clubs will likely keep a bulk of their older teams together and most of the movement will be in the younger ages because that is what makes the most sense. There is no mandate against playing up so most clubs will simply do that.

[Unregistered]

Most clubs will likely keep a bulk of their older teams together and most of the movement will be in the younger ages because that is what makes the most sense. There is no mandate against playing up so most clubs will simply do that.

Poking around on a few other sites that seems to be the common theme - older kids stay together (which is fine because the size differences aren't as great) and implement it with the younger kids. There more U14 and under teams so there's more places for displaced kids to land, the size differences can be large, and by the time they reach HS it will be the norm. Had that been the USSF strategy they would have saved themselves lots of hassle from everyone - but TS wouldn't have had nearly as much traffic!

[Unregistered]

Where have you been the past 5 months? This has been explained over and over. USSF has to align the RAE advantage with the rest of the world and they need to start at the very youngest ages (not when kids start ODP or academy, as then they've already lost 6-8 years of that advantage). Why would USSF want their teams to go into international competitions at any sort of disadvantage?...

I've been here, and I acknowledged basically this point. Apparently, you take it seriously--which seems to depend on not understanding the longer-term impact of RAE. So "the other side" of major disruption, at odds with the U.S.'s college focus, is about trying to offset some RAE disadvantage in youth international competitions. Okay: to each their own.

[Unregistered]

I've been here, and I acknowledged basically this point. Apparently, you take it seriously--which seems to depend on not understanding the longer-term impact of RAE. So "the other side" of major disruption, at odds with the U.S.'s college focus, is about trying to offset some RAE disadvantage in youth international competitions. Okay: to each their own.

The complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the RAE by the USSF is staggering. RAE exists in any 12 month span regardless of the start and end point. Post 38 was absolutely correct in that 1/2 of the players in the current scheme were already benefiting from "playing up." Given that ODP and NT paths were already using the birth year as a delineation there really was not a problem and this change only creates a larger one.

This misstep is exactly why many are questioning the viability of GDAP. The USSF clearly lacks knowledge of their marketplace in their analysis and decision making.

[Unregistered]

While I don't agree with the need for RAE, I'm not sure about USSF just missing all the issues it would create. They knew there would be displacement, but they figured that alignment with the rest of the world had to be achieved at some point (although it sounds like they didn't fully think through all the ramifications, or at least didn't articulate their thinking on how to deal with the issues that would arise). I imagine that they figured the displacement was worth it, and that people didn't have any choice but to comply, and they're right. The leagues are complying, and people are coming up with plans to deal with the "stuck" 8th graders.

I think GDAP is different- they knew they were going to have a battle on their hands with ECNL, and they proceeded anyways because they felt like they had to as they weren't happy with ECNL but couldn't control it.

[Unregistered]

Where have you been the past 5 months? This has been explained over and over. USSF has to align the RAE advantage with the rest of the world and they need to start at the very youngest ages (not when kids start ODP or academy, as then they've already lost 6-8 years of that advantage). Why would USSF want their teams to go into international competitions at any sort of disadvantage?

Yes, this sucks for your average ability Aug-Dec birthday kid, who may have had a little bit of a boost from RAE in the past, but now may end up quitting soccer a little sooner than the rest of the average players (my kid has a Dec. 24th birthday and is small to boot, so he is a worst case scenario). But for those real fall born standouts, this change will have little affect on them and they'll end up the same place either way.

Nice try acting like a dec kid's dad. This is not true. Your December kid loses 60% of his team after his junior team. For fall boys aspiring to go to college and play, this will hurt in terms of getting offers. Fact.

[Unregistered]

Nice try acting like a dec kid's dad. This is not true. Your December kid loses 60% of his team after his junior team. For fall boys aspiring to go to college and play, this will hurt in terms of getting offers. Fact.

They can play on the U18/19 teams most leagues are having. Problem solved. And in this are of the country, with HS in the fall, most recruiting has wrapped up by the time kids have to apply for schools senior year. Coaches normally want you to apply ED or EA, which means you've made your choices by November senior year. Winter/spring of junior year is your key recruiting time.

[Unregistered]

They can play on the U18/19 teams most leagues are having. Problem solved. And in this are of the country, with HS in the fall, most recruiting has wrapped up by the time kids have to apply for schools senior year. Coaches normally want you to apply ED or EA, which means you've made your choices by November senior year. Winter/spring of junior year is your key recruiting time.

Sure but the 18/19 grouping captures all rising juniors with Aug-Dec birthdays. Traditionally the u-18 teams were just prepping for college, now you will see a mix of of them with uncommitted Juniors.

[Unregistered]

Sure but the 18/19 grouping captures all rising juniors with Aug-Dec birthdays. Traditionally the u-18 teams were just prepping for college, now you will see a mix of of them with uncommitted Juniors.

not the op, but the juniors will also be recruiting. Op is right that much of the recruiting ramps up junior year, not end of senior year. Players will have to clearly communicate to coaches what their graduation year is.