There is no good argument for using any arbitrary birthdate as a cutoff. The "biobanding" concept presented in the article shared by McKeown is much more logical. Birthdate generally favors the oldest players: you will always see overweight of Jan/Feb birthdays on the higher teams. If you shift the cutoff to August 1, then you will just get more Aug/Sep birthdays instead.
Frankly, the argument for "biobanding" is just as appropriate for SCHOOL as it is for sports. Children grow and develop and mature at different rates. Grouping them by the day they popped out of the vagina doesn't serve them much purpose, if the goal is to teach them anything. Much more sensible is to match children against intellectual or physical peers based on ability not birthdate.
Responding to another comment, a mid-season growth spurt is not reason to switch teams. Growth spurts invariably couple with awkwardness and a drop in coordination while the children learn how to manage their bigger bodies. Size is but one factor in placement, not the only factor. Size AND skill should be evaluated, as well as maturity.
In Finland, a hockey powerhouse, this is how hockey teams are organized. Children within a wide range of ages will play on the same team based on ability and size. In another example, Wayne Gretzky became The Great One because he was too talented for his age-peers, so he played against 12-year-olds when he was like 7 or 8.
I would propose a hybrid structure as a start: how about a 3-year moving window according to birthdate or school date or whatever date. In any given season, you can fall in one of 3 different levels depending on your ability. Each of these can be broken down still further, so maybe there are 9 different team options in your 3-year window. Just a start toward some sanity.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You make a lot of sense. Interesting that US Soccer confirmed school year since I wrote this. I love the biobanding idea concept but there needs to be a threshold of competitive and competitive lite. The latter could stick to school year for social/friend purposes and the former can be for the real gunners incorporating biobanding. But who is going to be happy in a second tier? Kids? Probably. Parents? No.
Fair question! I guess they should transition to the next team up, because the whole point is, they shouldn't get complacent about physical dominance. If a player knows they can just barge other players off the ball, outrun them, whatever, there's less incentive to improve their basic technique. (To be quite clear, I don't think I've ever seen bio banding put into practice - I just recalled having read about it after reading your article.)
There is no good argument for using any arbitrary birthdate as a cutoff. The "biobanding" concept presented in the article shared by McKeown is much more logical. Birthdate generally favors the oldest players: you will always see overweight of Jan/Feb birthdays on the higher teams. If you shift the cutoff to August 1, then you will just get more Aug/Sep birthdays instead.
Frankly, the argument for "biobanding" is just as appropriate for SCHOOL as it is for sports. Children grow and develop and mature at different rates. Grouping them by the day they popped out of the vagina doesn't serve them much purpose, if the goal is to teach them anything. Much more sensible is to match children against intellectual or physical peers based on ability not birthdate.
Responding to another comment, a mid-season growth spurt is not reason to switch teams. Growth spurts invariably couple with awkwardness and a drop in coordination while the children learn how to manage their bigger bodies. Size is but one factor in placement, not the only factor. Size AND skill should be evaluated, as well as maturity.
In Finland, a hockey powerhouse, this is how hockey teams are organized. Children within a wide range of ages will play on the same team based on ability and size. In another example, Wayne Gretzky became The Great One because he was too talented for his age-peers, so he played against 12-year-olds when he was like 7 or 8.
I would propose a hybrid structure as a start: how about a 3-year moving window according to birthdate or school date or whatever date. In any given season, you can fall in one of 3 different levels depending on your ability. Each of these can be broken down still further, so maybe there are 9 different team options in your 3-year window. Just a start toward some sanity.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. You make a lot of sense. Interesting that US Soccer confirmed school year since I wrote this. I love the biobanding idea concept but there needs to be a threshold of competitive and competitive lite. The latter could stick to school year for social/friend purposes and the former can be for the real gunners incorporating biobanding. But who is going to be happy in a second tier? Kids? Probably. Parents? No.
Another possibility: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/sep/02/biobonding-football-coaching-young-elite-players
Whoa, I hadn’t heard of this put into practice before. I wonder what happens with in season growth spurts.
Fair question! I guess they should transition to the next team up, because the whole point is, they shouldn't get complacent about physical dominance. If a player knows they can just barge other players off the ball, outrun them, whatever, there's less incentive to improve their basic technique. (To be quite clear, I don't think I've ever seen bio banding put into practice - I just recalled having read about it after reading your article.)