ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So you are saying the biobanding players not only cheaters, but also losers?

No just players that most likely aren't going to amount to anything. Biobanding gives them a chance to keep playing and it gives other players on the team a chance to play up against older players in a limited fashion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s undeniable that the boost for Aug-Dec kids will be huge.

RAE is obvious.

My son’s club Academy1 team has 95% players Q1/Q2, and only one Q3 (my son).

However Academy2 is packed with Q3/Q4s.

It will change next year once SY is implemented.

You don't understand RAE.

They do, you don't.

No, you're just looking for the excuse du jour. Today its rae tomorrow it will be whatever coach doesn’t develop your kid enough so they can be pro players. Soon all the money in the world wont buy your way onto whatever team you think your kid should be on.

Once this happens you'll walk away from the wreckage and havoc you've created for everyone else. Happy that you "made a differnce".

Older kids tend to be better at sports than younger kids. Not sure why this accepted fact makes you bitter and angry and lash put. Saul good man.

Older kids? Your comment makes no sense.

But seriously what is the next excuse you plan to latch onto?

The reason they switched from SY to BY in the first place had to do with the majority of youth national team players being born Aug to November and they’d play internationally and the other countries were mostly Jan to June so we were at a disadvantage because are players were younger and smaller.

So we went with BY to align with the majority of other countries with the hopes that if US youth national teams could compete that would mean are men’s team would eventually compete as well.

This was part of it for sure. And it’s a great example of why the BY switch was smart, and Rec+ECNL’s drive to SY is $elf $erving at the expense of national ambition.

The other part of it was that we had a put the USMNT coach at the top of the football decision making tree and he had a long term strategic vision for youth and professional soccer in he US.

But like everything in the US, especially in business, everything is short term, and nobody has the patience for strategies that take multiple cohorts to come to fruition.

Why stay the course, when “my poor baby” is stuck in middle school while their teammates are in HS getting garbage reps with their classic level HS teammates. Because “mawr touches is better.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

You know final bosses only exist to be defeated.

Six months after switching from BY to SY the super rae parents kid will be on the bench again. When this happens they'll move on to the next excuse. Or they'll slink away never to be seen or heard from again. Onto some other sport another victim of rae. Never crosses their mind that their kid just isnt very good.i

What excuses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

They were born in a certain month. Its just how it is.

You want to change the rules so your kid can be the oldest.

This is all it really is. Problem is your kid didn't come up in a SY environment. They'll get blown out by jan birthday kids and ride the bench. Maybe in 5-6 years this will change but not right now. Everything you're fighting for wont matter for your kid.

Nobody on this thread is fighting for anything, except the thirty plus nut job. The powers that be are changing the rules back to where they were about 6-7 years ago. You should be happy now that your child gets to be a winner and play up now, on a lower level team probably but still up so a winner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Sure but then a higher share than normal are going to not accept being demoted and will move quit; a bunch going to other sports and a bunch quiting youth sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s undeniable that the boost for Aug-Dec kids will be huge.

RAE is obvious.

My son’s club Academy1 team has 95% players Q1/Q2, and only one Q3 (my son).

However Academy2 is packed with Q3/Q4s.

It will change next year once SY is implemented.

You don't understand RAE.

They do, you don't.

No, you're just looking for the excuse du jour. Today its rae tomorrow it will be whatever coach doesn’t develop your kid enough so they can be pro players. Soon all the money in the world wont buy your way onto whatever team you think your kid should be on.

Once this happens you'll walk away from the wreckage and havoc you've created for everyone else. Happy that you "made a differnce".

Older kids tend to be better at sports than younger kids. Not sure why this accepted fact makes you bitter and angry and lash put. Saul good man.

Older kids? Your comment makes no sense.

But seriously what is the next excuse you plan to latch onto?

The reason they switched from SY to BY in the first place had to do with the majority of youth national team players being born Aug to November and they’d play internationally and the other countries were mostly Jan to June so we were at a disadvantage because are players were younger and smaller.

So we went with BY to align with the majority of other countries with the hopes that if US youth national teams could compete that would mean are men’s team would eventually compete as well.

This was part of it for sure. And it’s a great example of why the BY switch was smart, and Rec+ECNL’s drive to SY is $elf $erving at the expense of national ambition.

The other part of it was that we had a put the USMNT coach at the top of the football decision making tree and he had a long term strategic vision for youth and professional soccer in he US.

But like everything in the US, especially in business, everything is short term, and nobody has the patience for strategies that take multiple cohorts to come to fruition.

Why stay the course, when “my poor baby” is stuck in middle school while their teammates are in HS getting garbage reps with their classic level HS teammates. Because “mawr touches is better.”

Nobody cares how youth national teams do. They need to do better in giving all birth months a fair shot at getting to adult national teams but they punted again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s undeniable that the boost for Aug-Dec kids will be huge.

RAE is obvious.

My son’s club Academy1 team has 95% players Q1/Q2, and only one Q3 (my son).

However Academy2 is packed with Q3/Q4s.

It will change next year once SY is implemented.

You don't understand RAE.

They do, you don't.

No, you're just looking for the excuse du jour. Today its rae tomorrow it will be whatever coach doesn’t develop your kid enough so they can be pro players. Soon all the money in the world wont buy your way onto whatever team you think your kid should be on.

Once this happens you'll walk away from the wreckage and havoc you've created for everyone else. Happy that you "made a differnce".

Older kids tend to be better at sports than younger kids. Not sure why this accepted fact makes you bitter and angry and lash put. Saul good man.

Older kids? Your comment makes no sense.

But seriously what is the next excuse you plan to latch onto?

The reason they switched from SY to BY in the first place had to do with the majority of youth national team players being born Aug to November and they’d play internationally and the other countries were mostly Jan to June so we were at a disadvantage because are players were younger and smaller.

So we went with BY to align with the majority of other countries with the hopes that if US youth national teams could compete that would mean are men’s team would eventually compete as well.

This was part of it for sure. And it’s a great example of why the BY switch was smart, and Rec+ECNL’s drive to SY is $elf $erving at the expense of national ambition.

The other part of it was that we had a put the USMNT coach at the top of the football decision making tree and he had a long term strategic vision for youth and professional soccer in he US.

But like everything in the US, especially in business, everything is short term, and nobody has the patience for strategies that take multiple cohorts to come to fruition.

Why stay the course, when “my poor baby” is stuck in middle school while their teammates are in HS getting garbage reps with their classic level HS teammates. Because “mawr touches is better.”

Nobody cares how youth national teams do. They need to do better in giving all birth months a fair shot at getting to adult national teams but they punted again.

Oh, you misunderstand. I could care less about BY / SY. YNT is great for kids 16 and under.

If you’re 17+ and on YNT not getting chances at NT, you’ve missed the boat.

But I do think having a national football philosophy that lasts no longer than the whims of one youth body or the other, based largely on their own offspring’s current journey (see the new windmill ECNL will sacrifice its political capital for: foreign students on college rosters…) is really a bad long term plan for ALL of youth soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

They were born in a certain month. Its just how it is.

You want to change the rules so your kid can be the oldest.

This is all it really is. Problem is your kid didn't come up in a SY environment. They'll get blown out by jan birthday kids and ride the bench. Maybe in 5-6 years this will change but not right now. Everything you're fighting for wont matter for your kid.

Nobody on this thread is fighting for anything, except the thirty plus nut job. The powers that be are changing the rules back to where they were about 6-7 years ago. You should be happy now that your child gets to be a winner and play up now, on a lower level team probably but still up so a winner.

The SY+30 person has said multiple times that it's the same thing as an 8/1 cutoff with a rule that players aren't allowed to play down. Which I believe is going to happen because otherwise you'd be trading trapped players in one group for even worse (playing down) trapped trapped players.

Reguarding will changing from BY to SY matter. As long as MLS Next stays top tier for boys and allows biobanding all the way down to u12. It wont matter. Unfortunately girls will still get screwed but NWSL isnt under pressure yet to field the best talent possible. Maybe this will change in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s undeniable that the boost for Aug-Dec kids will be huge.

RAE is obvious.

My son’s club Academy1 team has 95% players Q1/Q2, and only one Q3 (my son).

However Academy2 is packed with Q3/Q4s.

It will change next year once SY is implemented.

You don't understand RAE.

They do, you don't.

No, you're just looking for the excuse du jour. Today its rae tomorrow it will be whatever coach doesn’t develop your kid enough so they can be pro players. Soon all the money in the world wont buy your way onto whatever team you think your kid should be on.

Once this happens you'll walk away from the wreckage and havoc you've created for everyone else. Happy that you "made a differnce".

Older kids tend to be better at sports than younger kids. Not sure why this accepted fact makes you bitter and angry and lash put. Saul good man.

Older kids? Your comment makes no sense.

But seriously what is the next excuse you plan to latch onto?

The reason they switched from SY to BY in the first place had to do with the majority of youth national team players being born Aug to November and they’d play internationally and the other countries were mostly Jan to June so we were at a disadvantage because are players were younger and smaller.

So we went with BY to align with the majority of other countries with the hopes that if US youth national teams could compete that would mean are men’s team would eventually compete as well.

This was part of it for sure. And it’s a great example of why the BY switch was smart, and Rec+ECNL’s drive to SY is $elf $erving at the expense of national ambition.

The other part of it was that we had a put the USMNT coach at the top of the football decision making tree and he had a long term strategic vision for youth and professional soccer in he US.

But like everything in the US, especially in business, everything is short term, and nobody has the patience for strategies that take multiple cohorts to come to fruition.

Why stay the course, when “my poor baby” is stuck in middle school while their teammates are in HS getting garbage reps with their classic level HS teammates. Because “mawr touches is better.”

Nobody cares how youth national teams do. They need to do better in giving all birth months a fair shot at getting to adult national teams but they punted again.

Oh, you misunderstand. I could care less about BY / SY. YNT is great for kids 16 and under.

If you’re 17+ and on YNT not getting chances at NT, you’ve missed the boat.

But I do think having a national football philosophy that lasts no longer than the whims of one youth body or the other, based largely on their own offspring’s current journey (see the new windmill ECNL will sacrifice its political capital for: foreign students on college rosters…) is really a bad long term plan for ALL of youth soccer.

Agree x10000

18 year old ECNL players sinplely cant compete against 22-24 year old foreign Academy washouts. Unfortunately the ECNL hat wearing RAE lovers will have screwed everything up to the point where its not fixable before they realize that colleges wont seriously consider rostering their kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s undeniable that the boost for Aug-Dec kids will be huge.

RAE is obvious.

My son’s club Academy1 team has 95% players Q1/Q2, and only one Q3 (my son).

However Academy2 is packed with Q3/Q4s.

It will change next year once SY is implemented.

You don't understand RAE.

They do, you don't.

No, you're just looking for the excuse du jour. Today its rae tomorrow it will be whatever coach doesn’t develop your kid enough so they can be pro players. Soon all the money in the world wont buy your way onto whatever team you think your kid should be on.

Once this happens you'll walk away from the wreckage and havoc you've created for everyone else. Happy that you "made a differnce".

Older kids tend to be better at sports than younger kids. Not sure why this accepted fact makes you bitter and angry and lash put. Saul good man.

Older kids? Your comment makes no sense.

But seriously what is the next excuse you plan to latch onto?

The reason they switched from SY to BY in the first place had to do with the majority of youth national team players being born Aug to November and they’d play internationally and the other countries were mostly Jan to June so we were at a disadvantage because are players were younger and smaller.

So we went with BY to align with the majority of other countries with the hopes that if US youth national teams could compete that would mean are men’s team would eventually compete as well.

This was part of it for sure. And it’s a great example of why the BY switch was smart, and Rec+ECNL’s drive to SY is $elf $erving at the expense of national ambition.

The other part of it was that we had a put the USMNT coach at the top of the football decision making tree and he had a long term strategic vision for youth and professional soccer in he US.

But like everything in the US, especially in business, everything is short term, and nobody has the patience for strategies that take multiple cohorts to come to fruition.

Why stay the course, when “my poor baby” is stuck in middle school while their teammates are in HS getting garbage reps with their classic level HS teammates. Because “mawr touches is better.”

Nobody cares how youth national teams do. They need to do better in giving all birth months a fair shot at getting to adult national teams but they punted again.

Oh, you misunderstand. I could care less about BY / SY. YNT is great for kids 16 and under.

Just so nobody misunderstands again, could you care quite a bit less or just a little less? It will help everyone to calibrate…………

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

This is my concern for my son if he doesn’t move up to the NL team. I have actually never seen the younger NL team play. Could be that it wouldn’t help his development to join that team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

They were born in a certain month. Its just how it is.

You want to change the rules so your kid can be the oldest.

This is all it really is. Problem is your kid didn't come up in a SY environment. They'll get blown out by jan birthday kids and ride the bench. Maybe in 5-6 years this will change but not right now. Everything you're fighting for wont matter for your kid.

This makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

What would be super sad is if this person isn’t a kid. What a loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

They were born in a certain month. Its just how it is.

You want to change the rules so your kid can be the oldest.

This is all it really is. Problem is your kid didn't come up in a SY environment. They'll get blown out by jan birthday kids and ride the bench. Maybe in 5-6 years this will change but not right now. Everything you're fighting for wont matter for your kid.

This makes no sense.

This is because you think rae is everything when its not.