Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In the big picture why does it matter if a league uses BY to pick a small handfull of players? Wouldnt it make it easier to play SY and focus in on the tiny pool of players who play up and ALSO are starters? vs the half a million kids in the sea of players??
The we need BY to identify players seems like a bad argument to me. [/quote] That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote] That’s not what happened…where do you come up with this?! The distribution on the YNT improved after BY switch.[/quote]False[/quote] Not false…you’re an idiot [/quote]No, it is false. Very clearly false.[/quote] You’re referring to the finnegan studies. If you actually read the data and the analysis, you’ll see that birth quartiles on YNT were smoothed after the change to BY. Before BY, Q1 was under represented. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In the big picture why does it matter if a league uses BY to pick a small handfull of players? Wouldnt it make it easier to play SY and focus in on the tiny pool of players who play up and ALSO are starters? vs the half a million kids in the sea of players??
The we need BY to identify players seems like a bad argument to me. [/quote] That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote] That’s not what happened…where do you come up with this?! The distribution on the YNT improved after BY switch.[/quote]False[/quote] Not false…you’re an idiot [/quote]No, it is false. Very clearly false.[/quote] You’re referring to the finnegan studies. If you actually read the data and the analysis, you’ll see that birth quartiles on YNT were smoothed after the change to BY. Before BY, Q1 was under represented.[/quote]No |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In the big picture why does it matter if a league uses BY to pick a small handfull of players? Wouldnt it make it easier to play SY and focus in on the tiny pool of players who play up and ALSO are starters? vs the half a million kids in the sea of players??
The we need BY to identify players seems like a bad argument to me. [/quote] That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote] That’s not what happened…where do you come up with this?! The distribution on the YNT improved after BY switch.[/quote]False[/quote] Not false…you’re an idiot [/quote]No, it is false. Very clearly false.[/quote] You’re referring to the finnegan studies. If you actually read the data and the analysis, you’ll see that birth quartiles on YNT were smoothed after the change to BY. Before BY, Q1 was under represented.[/quote]No[/quote] Yes…but you seem to be convinced that your 4th hand knowledge is unquestionable…as it’s goes, often wrong never in doubt…so you go on ahead. 🤣 |
Anonymous
| That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote]Tru dat. |
Anonymous
| There is a lot of passion, clearly, around the choice of 9/1 instead of 8/1. I was originally one of the mad and confused people around the decision, but the more I’ve asked questions the better I understand it. The powers that be were tasked with choosing one 12-month period that maximizes the number of kids playing with their grade level and thereby minimizes the number of additional steps/exceptions needed to form teams. A national policy of 8/1 would have left about 40 states dealing with one-off issues for their August kids, whereas a national policy of 9/1 leaves just 10 states with that issue. “Playing up” vs. “playing down” was irrelevant here; it was about picking a simple window to group kids by school year and avoid the most process and registration exceptions. 9/1 accomplishes that. Full stop. AND, it is early days on all of this. I do hope that more localized policy can be used to address the issue of August in the 10 states where it is actually a problem. But, if not, what’s the result? About 2% of kids nationally -1/12 of births in 20% of states- will play with (most of) the same kids they play with today. And if my kid is one of them, great. I’ll tell them they actually were the winner in all of this, as they get to play with bigger/better/older team and develop faster. |
Anonymous
| Okay so we have established RAE, 9/1 for SY and this won’t start until 26/27. All that’s left is GA/MLSN. Anyone have insight on it? They need to announce soon because that will change my 2013 club choice based on platform as she is Q4 |
Anonymous
| A lot of Aug parents were pumped thinking their kid would be the only group allowed to play against kids a grade below, but then that dream was crushed with a 9/1 cut off |
Anonymous
| Hopefully GA/MLSN will announce their BY/SY intentions after the champions cup |
Anonymous
I don't think GA is making it's decision on BY or SY dependent on where your 2013 will play. You may think they care about your kids situation but obviously they do not. |
Anonymous
|
My son is September 20th, 2013. Here in my area I’ve got two main options for next season: - ECNL (SY, he will be the oldest) - MLS Next Tier 2 (BY, he will be the youngest). What do you recommend for him? Thanks! Ps: he plays currently pre-ECNL U12, he is the youngest but the max scorer. |
Anonymous
| * I meant “for next seasonS”, not 25/26, but since 26/27. |
Anonymous
It depends on the club and the coach. I think ECNL will be higher level than MLSN Tier 2, but it all depends on the quality of each individual team as well as the quality of the coach. |
Anonymous
|
It might be that Q1/Q2 players will tend to move to MLSNext (Tier 1 or 2) and Q3/Q4 to play ECNL? |
Anonymous
It is irrational to think that MLSN will stay with BY registration and alienate themselves from Q3/Q4 players, especially when they are valued in markets that we would like to sell their abilities too. |
Anonymous
| This thread is slowly dying…now that the BY crowd knows it’s all coming to an end they’ve retreated… |