2020-2021 Boys Age Groups

Current galaxy 18/19 roster is filled with ‘02 players. Not sure what you are talking about.

Only (10) 2002 play regularly and some don't even start, there has always been 6 or more 2003 rostered per game, sometimes the majority of the team is 2003 just like for the DA cup playoffs.

3x of the 2003 have already played with Galaxy 2 USL team & train with them.

(10) 2003 played on the u18/19 in the critical playoff game vs Dallas last time out

What are you talking about again?
 
Appears that this poster believes his son is “elite” and he wants as much of the competition shut out before they physically develop and/or get better than his son. Wrong?

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but fair play to you.

Give me your definition of elite. From there I will determine if this debate is even worth my time.

I’ll give you mine ahead of time. I think we, as a country have produced maybe (being generous) 10 elite soccer players. The very essence of what we are discussing is one of the reasons I believe this number is so low.
 
Not sure how you came to that conclusion, but fair play to you.

Give me your definition of elite. From there I will determine if this debate is even worth my time.

I’ll give you mine ahead of time. I think we, as a country have produced maybe (being generous) 10 elite soccer players. The very essence of what we are discussing is one of the reasons I believe this number is so low.

The definition of 'elite' on an absolute/overall basis isn't the relevant point here (but I agree the U.S. has produced very few truly elite players).

My primary point was that I am straining to find any logical reason why you believe that it is "good news" that the DA is retaining the single, combined U17/U16 age group. The only explanation I could find was the somewhat twisted theory that I provided in my last post. Otherwise, I see no reason why any rational person would call this "good news" (other than clubs who don't want to spend more $$ for a separate U16 age group team). I understand that weeding out players is part of a competitive process for identifying elite players, but it makes zero sense (to me) to weed out nearly 50% of the players at an age when kids are going through huge growth changes (with some physically developing early and others later).
Not to repeat earlier posts, but late physically developing players may have more upside in terms of the skill they have had to develop to survive/succeed as a player as well as their late growth upside. But, in a "win now" DA environment, many of those players will be cut in favor of kids who grew early and can help produce victories in the short term (for lazy coaches who don't know how to win any other way). This isn't just theory - I am already seeing kids who were highly regarded early, based largely on early physical advantages, who are starting to flatten out because they don't have the skill set to succeed when their physical advantage dwindles, but many of these kids will likely survive the initial U16/17 cut because of their reputation while other, emerging players won't get the chance to develop and be seen at the DA level.
 
First, (@Husky13) this is a really good post and I don't think anyone could tell you that your opinion is wrong. That said, there are multiple angles to this dilemma and I think peoples position on the topic depend on the angle they take. I'll do my best to lay out my opinion and reasoning as best I can. Apologies in advance if some of these are wordy. It's difficult to have this conversation in a forum versus speaking face to face.

The definition of 'elite' on an absolute/overall basis isn't the relevant point here
For me, it is the focal point of what we are discussing and one of the main reasons why we have failed on a world stage for so long. In the US, for the past 50 years, football has been an activity, a sport, a way to be outside and have fun while staying fit and being with friends. In the rest of the world, football is a business that is vital to both economies and cultures. In the US we used words like fun, participation, free play, scholarship, equal playing time, open subs, etc. In other parts of the world they use terms like elite, world class, transfer fees, Champions League, promotion, relegation, staying up, going down, etc. In my opinion, it is weird that a country that was built upon capitalistic views and doing anything to get ahead has such a socialistic view when it comes to youth sports. I find it equally weird that the current societal views in Europe are opposite as their football culture. Our youth development strategy needs to be designed around the really good players and everything should be aimed at getting those players to their maximum level.

I think first, we have to agree, or attempt to agree what purpose USSF and DA serves in the overall youth development in the US. I don't think it is the job of the Federation to develop players. I think that job belongs to each individual club and always should. Just so you know, I can't stand MLS and I feel it is a disaster of a league, but its what we have and we somehow have to make it work. Also, I want to make it clear that I am on record in this thread saying I have no issue with split age groups within non-MLS clubs. I think each club should have a stated goal so any parent, player and coach can make an informed decision as to join or not. If the goal is to put players in front of college coaches and have their players earn scholarships, that is perfectly fine. They should be judged on how many players receive those scholarships versus how many don't.

I feel MLS clubs should have one goal and one goal only...to produce the best professional players they can, some of which should become elite, which for me is in the XI in a perennial Champions League club. When this is the stated goal, it is a giant game of risk/reward. It is about identifying elite talent as early as possible and then providing the resources, training, competition, and many other things in order to get the most out of that talent. To your point, when this is the stated goal, it means making difficult decisions and since we are talking about youth, it means some kids get the short end of the stick. While there are absolutely examples of kids that didn't earn a spot on a combined U16/17 team that did become good players, they are not as common as people would like to believe.

(other than clubs who don't want to spend more $$ for a separate U16 age group team)
Why this may apply to MLS clubs who spend hundreds of thousands per year on each team trying to develop those few professionals, I don't think it applies to non-MLS clubs that generate revenue from dues. I would think these clubs would love to have 2 separate teams that each pay annual dues.

I understand that weeding out players is part of a competitive process for identifying elite players
I don't think weeding out players has anything to do with identifying elite players. I think elite players are pretty easily identified on their own without any noise around them. I do however, think that weeding out player is part of the further development of those elite players. These elite players need to be surrounded by as many like minded, like skilled, like bodied players as possible. They need to be pushed every minute of every training session knowing their spot can be taken at any moment. I don't think "waiting" for a player to develop physically, or get better technically is worth risking the development of a potentially elite player in a team environment. At 10-15 years of age, I think we are on the same page, after that is where I think we start to disagree.

Not to repeat earlier posts, but late physically developing players may have more upside in terms of the skill they have had to develop to survive/succeed as a player as well as their late growth upside. But, in a "win now" DA environment, many of those players will be cut in favor of kids who grew early and can help produce victories in the short term (for lazy coaches who don't know how to win any other way).
You have a very good point here and one that most will all agree with. However, I don't view this issue as one that is combined or not combined age group related. This is an issue with our current set up and structure. Most of these clubs have to win now to stay relevant and in order to continue to generate revenue by bringing in players. There are undoubtedly late bloomers that are cut in favor of early bloomers, but this has been happening in every sport for a very long time, its not something new. Where do we go wrong? I think its in multiple areas. First, our clubs do a terrible job of communicating openly and honestly with players and families. This is out of fear of that revenue walking out the door. Second, our parents in general are terrible at taking open, honest communication and making an informed decision with the information. The second a coach sits a family down and says, "Listen, I think you are going to be a very good player. However, due to your size, speed, athleticism it is difficult for you to compete at the level needed at this moment and I don't feel you will get the touches or playing time needed to develop properly. I want you to continue to train with this team but we need to find games for you somewhere else" - the player and family leave and go try somewhere else. Everyone is living in this middle ground that isn't good for anyone. A small, late blooming player that truly has the mentality, soccer IQ and technique to become elite will not be hurt by learning how to dominate games at a level below DA for less than a year. I would argue, it would probably even help them as compared to struggling to compete, getting on the ball, getting past players or defending in an environment in which they are physically inferior. I think there is also a confidence aspect to this that needs to be considered.
 
continued...

Part of this issue is exacerbated by some of the stupid rules USSF has applied to the DA. Part of this issue is down to coaches not being able to look past today when identifying talent. Part of this issue is down to players and parents (mostly parents) that are impatient and don't want to hear the player they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on, may not turn out to be the greatest player in the world.

In short, our clubs and coaches are a huge issue when it comes to this, way more so than a combined U16/17 age group.

I am fine with the fact that I may hold a minority opinion here and I think its perfectly fine that there is disagreement on this topic. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong here and each players situation may be different. It is incumbent on coaches and clubs getting better at identifying unique qualities in players and it is incumbent on parents being more realistic as to where their son or daughter really fits in the talent spectrum.

I've been all over the place with this post, but will leave with a story around a conversation I had with a top European Academy Director a number of years ago. He said to me, the longer we take to choose which player(s) we are going to pour our resources in to try and get to the first team, the farther we get behind in that process. He mentioned that they miss on players way more often than they hit on players. However, it that world, all it takes is to hit on one player and it could result in a $50M-$100M windfall. When that occurs, the blow is softened on the players that were mis-identified. This philosophy is quite possibly lost on American parents, especially those that are unfamiliar with the inter-workings of the global game. To give you a better understanding, the latest discussion in Europe is clubs questioning the need for a U19 age group. The thought is if a kid isn't identified as a potential professional after their U17 year and doesn't have the ability to yet play in the Reserve team, is the added expense of that U19 team worth it.

From a personal standpoint, I think there is a place for any kid that wants to play youth soccer in the US. That isn't always the case in Europe where the playing population is drastically reduced as you climb the age ladder. College soccer will always be here and it will always be a great way for good players to get their education while playing the sport they love. There are clubs that should use this as their primary goal and not worry about competing with MLS clubs.

Finally, what would I do? Or what would I like to see? I want to see an environment beginning at the U16 level that has increased pressure on individual performance. I would like to see our Fed invest some of the millions they have into analytical concepts in which every player knows their key stats in every game. Running distance, pass completion %, turnover %, shots, shots on goal, forward passes, duels, heat maps, etc. Maybe they can only afford to do this with MLS clubs, but it could be added data combined with the eye test that we aren't that great at yet. How do we expect to identify elite talent at 14, 15, 16, 17 years old when 99.9% of coaches in the US have NEVER seen what elite 14, 15, 16, 17 year old talent looks like. I would like to see freedom of movement allowed by the Federation and clubs with some financial incentive involved. If a small kid at U16 can't get into the U16/17 team at LAFC, why do we restrict San Jose coming in for that kid and saying, hey we will take you and put you in school and board you? Why couldn't Seattle, who is in need of CM players at U17 offer to pay Portland $25k to take a player that is 3rd or 4th in line because they happen to be stacked at CM players in that age? There are so many options, none of which I have ever heard anyone talking about seriously.

In the end, I want elite talent developed in the US. I want to compete for World Cup titles and I want to see 5 US born players on the field in a Champions League final. In order to get individual players to that point, choices have to be made, feelings will be hurt, lessons will be learned and US Soccer will be better off for it. Could it be at the expense of some kids at U16 that got shafted, I guess so, and that is the part of it that sucks.

Apologies for the lengthy response, but believe it or not, I still don't feel like I have properly conveyed my stance the exact way I would like to.
 
continued...

Part of this issue is exacerbated by some of the stupid rules USSF has applied to the DA. Part of this issue is down to coaches not being able to look past today when identifying talent. Part of this issue is down to players and parents (mostly parents) that are impatient and don't want to hear the player they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on, may not turn out to be the greatest player in the world.

In short, our clubs and coaches are a huge issue when it comes to this, way more so than a combined U16/17 age group.

I am fine with the fact that I may hold a minority opinion here and I think its perfectly fine that there is disagreement on this topic. There isn't necessarily a right or wrong here and each players situation may be different. It is incumbent on coaches and clubs getting better at identifying unique qualities in players and it is incumbent on parents being more realistic as to where their son or daughter really fits in the talent spectrum.

I've been all over the place with this post, but will leave with a story around a conversation I had with a top European Academy Director a number of years ago. He said to me, the longer we take to choose which player(s) we are going to pour our resources in to try and get to the first team, the farther we get behind in that process. He mentioned that they miss on players way more often than they hit on players. However, it that world, all it takes is to hit on one player and it could result in a $50M-$100M windfall. When that occurs, the blow is softened on the players that were mis-identified. This philosophy is quite possibly lost on American parents, especially those that are unfamiliar with the inter-workings of the global game. To give you a better understanding, the latest discussion in Europe is clubs questioning the need for a U19 age group. The thought is if a kid isn't identified as a potential professional after their U17 year and doesn't have the ability to yet play in the Reserve team, is the added expense of that U19 team worth it.

From a personal standpoint, I think there is a place for any kid that wants to play youth soccer in the US. That isn't always the case in Europe where the playing population is drastically reduced as you climb the age ladder. College soccer will always be here and it will always be a great way for good players to get their education while playing the sport they love. There are clubs that should use this as their primary goal and not worry about competing with MLS clubs.

Finally, what would I do? Or what would I like to see? I want to see an environment beginning at the U16 level that has increased pressure on individual performance. I would like to see our Fed invest some of the millions they have into analytical concepts in which every player knows their key stats in every game. Running distance, pass completion %, turnover %, shots, shots on goal, forward passes, duels, heat maps, etc. Maybe they can only afford to do this with MLS clubs, but it could be added data combined with the eye test that we aren't that great at yet. How do we expect to identify elite talent at 14, 15, 16, 17 years old when 99.9% of coaches in the US have NEVER seen what elite 14, 15, 16, 17 year old talent looks like. I would like to see freedom of movement allowed by the Federation and clubs with some financial incentive involved. If a small kid at U16 can't get into the U16/17 team at LAFC, why do we restrict San Jose coming in for that kid and saying, hey we will take you and put you in school and board you? Why couldn't Seattle, who is in need of CM players at U17 offer to pay Portland $25k to take a player that is 3rd or 4th in line because they happen to be stacked at CM players in that age? There are so many options, none of which I have ever heard anyone talking about seriously.

In the end, I want elite talent developed in the US. I want to compete for World Cup titles and I want to see 5 US born players on the field in a Champions League final. In order to get individual players to that point, choices have to be made, feelings will be hurt, lessons will be learned and US Soccer will be better off for it. Could it be at the expense of some kids at U16 that got shafted, I guess so, and that is the part of it that sucks.

Apologies for the lengthy response, but believe it or not, I still don't feel like I have properly conveyed my stance the exact way I would like to.
Pretty good stuff. I especially like the line about how our coaches haven't seen what real elite talent looks like. I do see freedom of movement though. I know U15s and 16s from CA and elsewhere getting scholarships at Barca AZ, RSL Academy and elsewhere.
 
continued...

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post. I have to apologize about the snarky interpretation in my previous post. Your post was well thought out and I appreciate the time you took to share those thoughts. I actually think we agree far more than we disagree, particularly on philosophy, although we perhaps have different approaches when it comes to how to execute on some of this.

Here are some nuances where my views may (or may not) differ slightly, to inject into the discussion:

* Adding a U16 age group isn't just about giving younger/late developing players a fair chance in my view. It is about preserving more lottery tickets, because during this age players move up and down quite a bit in the "rankings" because (1) kids grow or don't grow, and (2) more qualities become necessary to succeed in soccer as the competition level rises (intelligence/decision-making, etc.) and coaches in the U.S. have proven time and again that they aren't good at spotting or valuing those qualities in players at early ages. With respect to younger/late developing players, I would also add that in some cases these players aren't just cases of players who have an equal shot at succeeding but aren't getting that shot due to RAE - rather, at risk of repeating my earlier post, some of these players have more upside over time because they have been forced to develop those other qualities just to survive. Those are lottery tickets that may be worth preserving even more than the average prospect.

* I have always held the same view you shared in terms of kids who aren't quite good enough (or physically ready) being better served playing at the "B team" level. It is far better for a player to be a leader on a B team than to be one of the last players off the bench on the A team. But - this might be the most important point of my post - adding a U16 age group is more like creating a B team for those lottery tickets to continue to develop, while merely having a U16/17 age group is more like the "last player off the bench" scenario. Why? Because, as a practical matter, what most of these DA clubs are doing is creating player pools of 28-30 kids for U16/17 (some, like LA Galaxy, even more), and then allowing their lottery tickets to languish and not develop further because they are getting little to no game experience during a critical year.

I completely appreciate the EU approach of trying to hit on lottery tickets. Youth soccer has provided many tremendous experiences both for my son and for me as a parent, and among those is five (to date) overseas trips for soccer at the highest levels where I have been able to speak with knowledgeable premier club representatives, scouts and parents about all of this. I would ask this: if you want to win the lottery, is the better strategy to have one ticket where you have to fill in all seven numbers, or to have ten tickets with two of the numbers already filled in on each? My analogy isn't perfect, but it is close.

Lastly, although I think I would still have the same general perspective on all of this, perhaps my feelings wouldn't be quite so strong if U.S. coaches were good at identifying longer-term prospects at early ages. The data pretty clearly shows that U.S. coaches and scouts are absolutely terrible at this. Do we truly believe that the U.S. hasn't produced many elite soccer players because we don't have the talent pool? I know there are other factors (e.g. growing up in a stronger soccer culture), but I suspect the biggest factor is that coaches value the wrong qualities in identifying their prospects at young ages, and many of those prospects predictably flatten out with age and never turn into anything. I am seeing that over and over with MLS academies in real time. Kids that were identified at age 12 who looked better in large part because they were bigger/faster/stronger at that age and succeeded because of those advantages, who are heavily invested in by MLS academies, but who start to flatten out at 15 because the physical gap dwindles and they don't have the other qualities needed to maintain that performance gap over other players.
 
Calendar year straight across without the combo age groups is what was recommended but ussda has decided so far to do things differently. One of these days they will wise up and get it right.

DA in reality is a deadend for majority of the players as it stands now. Only a small % will have the speed, skill, drive to succeed at the next level, < 10% is my guess.

Not even sure what the ratio of college mens players who used to play DA but it's not as great as most seem to think and there are potentially large numbers of former U15 DA boys players who don't even end up playing college ball or at the D1 level.

What are most players really getting out of DA? 3-5 years of good training, competition with a lot of travel.
 
continued...

From a personal standpoint, I think there is a place for any kid that wants to play youth soccer in the US. That isn't always the case in Europe where the playing population is drastically reduced as you climb the age ladder. College soccer will always be here and it will always be a great way for good players to get their education while playing the sport they love. There are clubs that should use this as their primary goal and not worry about competing with MLS clubs.

I am intrigued by your statement here. It is something that I have heard from friends and relatives in Europe and comparing it with my own experience with my kids in US. It is unique in US that kids older than 10 with 0% chance of playing pro continue to train and play in competitive soccer. Parents appear to have an obsession about it as well. I suspect it is caused by the hope that their kids can play in high school then possibly help them with college application (not talking about scholarship, more like good grades+activity for good D3 college, MIT as an extreme example).
Nobody care about high school sports and college in Europe (maybe not even exist). EU kids who have no chance of going pro or Olympic will stop training seriously after 10 in Europe. By 10 yr old, any coach would know that 90-95% kids have no chance. After that, training and coaching only relevant to 5-10% of playing population (even less I think). Australia also identify Olympic hopes at elementary schools.
In the end, US is a blessing for regular kids with no hope to become pro but can still play competitive soccer until high school. It is not unique to soccer, my kids also swim competitively and parents obsession is the same even with the knowledge that our kids has 0% chance to swim in college/pro. This is how expensive clubs can thrive in US, because regular kids are willing to pay dues.
Does it hurt elite soccer players? Maybe, I do not know the answer. It does not hurt US Olympic swimmers, though.
 
I have heard from friends and relatives in Europe and comparing it with my own experience with my kids in US. It is unique in US that kids older than 10 with 0% chance of playing pro continue to train and play in competitive soccer.
I've posted this before, but this is exactly my experience with high-level soccer in Poland (where my wife and kids are citizens). Europeans know soccer much better than Americans for the most part and know very early whether a kid has any potential. The idea that anyone would pay for a "flight 3" level club would seem silly in Europe. If your kid is great, they will get picked up by a local club / academy. If they're anything but great, they play in their school and out on the yard and have fun.
 
I've posted this before, but this is exactly my experience with high-level soccer in Poland (where my wife and kids are citizens). Europeans know soccer much better than Americans for the most part and know very early whether a kid has any potential. The idea that anyone would pay for a "flight 3" level club would seem silly in Europe. If your kid is great, they will get picked up by a local club / academy. If they're anything but great, they play in their school and out on the yard and have fun.

It's the recreationalization (my made up word) of competitive soccer in the US. Some clubs go 8 deep in boys teams at certain ages, so many that they get close to running out of colors to name them. I would estimate that less than 10% of club soccer is actually "competitive" soccer.

Whereas, at the same age US clubs have teams that go 8 deep, kids in England are being castoff by academies.
 
It's the recreationalization (my made up word) of competitive soccer in the US. Some clubs go 8 deep in boys teams at certain ages, so many that they get close to running out of colors to name them. I would estimate that less than 10% of club soccer is actually "competitive" soccer.

It is uniquely American, for sure. I don't have any issue with the amount of players and teams that participate. Football is a great sport to keep kids active and out of trouble, learning life lessons on work ethic, teamwork, and competition. They worry for me comes when the competitive lines are blurred and the focus shifts away from developing the top end players.

The NYT article posted above is fantastic and anyone not familiar with the youth environment in other countries can get a better understanding just how competitive it is. While we teach coaches to no put pressure on players, the rest of the world has a built in youth culture that organically is pressure filled. In my opinion (I've been wrong many times), this is one of the largest separating factors between the US and other countries.

Don't get me wrong, I think the safety net culture we have is great for the vast majority of youth players, but it doesn't do many favors for the really elite players. There are so many safety nets in place, no matter how many times a youth player falls, they are always caught. Not going to become a European pro, there is always MLS and USL. Not going to make it as a pro in an American league, there is always D1 college teams. If you can't get into a D1 college team, you can play D2, D3, NAIA or JuCo. This is great and it is what keeps so many kids in the game, but it is not the structure and pressure packed environment that will produce a world class player.

Good conversations in here. It is great to see people with different opinions.
 
This was to be expected, several of us have speculated this would happen during sideline soccer chatter. The USL announced an Academy (HS U15-U19) league earlier this season, when that announcement came out it looked like U18/U19 teams might become redundant. MLS clubs aren't in the business of developing kids for college. The USL Academy league makes the whole structure look more like a pyramid. Now, you have a full U15 DA team, a U16/17 DA team (so, basically 1/2 of a team per age group in theory), and the USL Academy team (accelerated U15-U17 players mixed in with some U18/U19 players). Plus, kids promoted to the USL now don't have to play against full grown men.

The part of this that I continue to disagree with is the absence of a U16 team, because kids are going through so many physical growth spurts/developmental changes at that age and it doesn't make sense (to me) to shave half of the kids after U15 when your data about those players is so incomplete. Plus, many teams are heavily weighting their U16/U17 teams towards almost all U17s in order to win because of the DA's Tier 1/2 structure, which increases the emphasis on winning and motivates coaches to use shortcuts. Or, impose minimum playing time requirements for U16s on the U16/U17 squads to eliminate this coaching behavior ….
 
Had no idea this was coming when I posted the info above. I am sure some won't be happy with it if/when it occurs, but I think you can see the direction this is headed. I am not sure where I stand on this. Some positives, but some negatives as well.

Sorry, don't know how to embed a tweet.


Interesting in light of the fact that DA just split 18/19 into A and B tiers, which it was speculated that it was done to appease the MLS DA. Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't this effectively eliminate the purpose of the DA tiered program (assuming its true)?
 
Had no idea this was coming when I posted the info above. I am sure some won't be happy with it if/when it occurs, but I think you can see the direction this is headed. I am not sure where I stand on this. Some positives, but some negatives as well.

Sorry, don't know how to embed a tweet.


Yup like I have said multiple times in this thread.

DA has a useful lifespan for players but once you get to a certain point it's time to move on, u19 is that point or even sooner like u17 if your really a top prospect.

There are few U19's as things are now anyway because the mls clubs known these players have had the opportunity to play DA for what 5 yrs already and there not suddenly going to have some big upside while essentially playing down against younger players their last red shirt type of season.
 
Interesting in light of the fact that DA just split 18/19 into A and B tiers, which it was speculated that it was done to appease the MLS DA. Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't this effectively eliminate the purpose of the DA tiered program (assuming its true)?

Ture and already being done by some.

Tier's are a mashup mostly for MLS & should be strictly based on results so not the best currently but don't see how phasing out u19 makes much of any difference?

U16/17 is already tiered behind the scenes & with the DA cup anyway. U18 more of a hard tier, so guess those players will have a single year remaining instead of two? Do they really need a do over for the limited numbers that still haven't moved on or went to college already?
 
DA has a useful lifespan for players but once you get to a certain point it's time to move on, u19 is that point or even sooner like u17 if your really a top prospect.
I think this applies to the "lower end" as well. I think some kids who have no intention or chance of playing college soccer or earning a needed scholarship should also bail. Go be a super-star at HS. Can easily go from a HS team to a JC then you now have options. Can buckle down and be ready academically and/or athletically to finish at a 4 year or at minimum you are getting athlete perks at a JC and having fun.

I tell my kid if you ever say the minimum of I don't want to play college soccer than the DA isn't the program for you. Too much sacrificed for just being a good player. Other ways to achieve that.
 
This was to be expected, several of us have speculated this would happen during sideline soccer chatter. The USL announced an Academy (HS U15-U19) league earlier this season, when that announcement came out it looked like U18/U19 teams might become redundant. MLS clubs aren't in the business of developing kids for college. The USL Academy league makes the whole structure look more like a pyramid. Now, you have a full U15 DA team, a U16/17 DA team (so, basically 1/2 of a team per age group in theory), and the USL Academy team (accelerated U15-U17 players mixed in with some U18/U19 players). Plus, kids promoted to the USL now don't have to play against full grown men.

The part of this that I continue to disagree with is the absence of a U16 team, because kids are going through so many physical growth spurts/developmental changes at that age and it doesn't make sense (to me) to shave half of the kids after U15 when your data about those players is so incomplete. Plus, many teams are heavily weighting their U16/U17 teams towards almost all U17s in order to win because of the DA's Tier 1/2 structure, which increases the emphasis on winning and motivates coaches to use shortcuts. Or, impose minimum playing time requirements for U16s on the U16/U17 squads to eliminate this coaching behavior ….

Straight single calendar year takes care of that and hopefully DA gets enough feedback to finally use that across all the groups like what has been recommended by ussf. Phasing out u19 makes that one step closer IMO.
 
Back
Top