Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.
Don't forget they said it's for 26/27!
I believe ECNL will have a transition plan for 25/26 season.
2 steps ...
step 1, ask coach to recruit good sept/Q4 players between now and then, not necessarily needing them to join the club this season
step 2, ask coach to tell parents of other birth months not to worry/not much will change/it doesn't affect you.
Step 1 is stupid. Coaches are going to take the best kids to fill the roster spots.
They don’t take a kid that isn’t as skilled but has a birthday that they like. They don’t do that with Jan babies in BY and they won’t do it with October babies in SY.
Roster spots are limited. You don’t waste them based on birthdate.
The issue with RAE isn’t birthdate based, it’s development based. Not sure why you people don’t get that.
A skillful December 2010 kid playing ECNL RL has a great chance to be placed on an ECNL team after the new birth date changes have been put in place.
My son is a skillful late December 2010 ECNL RL player whose school team played a friendly against a 2011 ECNL team recently. He would be clearly the top midfielder on this 2011 ECNL that his school team played. His school team coach is also the coach of this 2011 ECNL team and he told me my son would walk into the starting lineup on this 2011 team.
Those of you that don’t think it will make a difference are kidding yourselves. All of the Q4 players that are still playing competitively at a high level at 13, 14, and 15 years will have a huge advantage with this change.
You’re being biased and idiotic. A skillful kid regardless of birth month has a chance to make an ECNL team. You’re mistakenly substituting birth month for skill accumulation, maturation and athletic development and then applying that to an assumed static pool of alternatives. It’s not only bad logic, but it fundamentally misunderstands RAE and age cutoffs.
Insults will always make your argument weaker.
I am fully aware of RAE. The fact that on average ECNL teams have a disproportionately low number of Q4 players means there is a bias for older (and more developed) players that are born in Q1. Now, the bias will be in favor of those born in September - Q4. On average, kids born earlier will be bigger, faster, and stronger, but of course there will always be early developers, average developers, and late developers. The late year kids will now, on average, be bigger, faster, and stronger.
The RAE will not disappear with this change.