ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

There will be no need of special provisions. Most younger kids trained harder because they were athletically behind, but have now caught up. The Q1 advantages, on the girls side, are mostly gone. Aug and Sept birthdays will play with their school year, mostly. What will be very interesting is what the parents who held their kids back a year do. There are plenty of them on good teams (ARL/BSC). Do you play up on a better team and potentially get overlooked by scouts because you are the laying with the wrong SY team or do you drop. That is the key interesting question and what will change the trajectory of these teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

Depends on the need of each individual club. It’s not a one size fits all situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no need of special provisions. Most younger kids trained harder because they were athletically behind, but have now caught up. The Q1 advantages, on the girls side, are mostly gone. Aug and Sept birthdays will play with their school year, mostly. What will be very interesting is what the parents who held their kids back a year do. There are plenty of them on good teams (ARL/BSC). Do you play up on a better team and potentially get overlooked by scouts because you are the laying with the wrong SY team or do you drop. That is the key interesting question and what will change the trajectory of these teams.

I think it depends on the club and the age. In the U13-15 age, it’s not as big a deal to be playing on a team that doesn’t fit your grad year assuming there is room and you don’t get forced to play with your current age group. When you get to U16-18, it is a much bigger deal and you’re doing yourself a disservice if you’re not aligned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be no need of special provisions. Most younger kids trained harder because they were athletically behind, but have now caught up. The Q1 advantages, on the girls side, are mostly gone. Aug and Sept birthdays will play with their school year, mostly. What will be very interesting is what the parents who held their kids back a year do. There are plenty of them on good teams (ARL/BSC). Do you play up on a better team and potentially get overlooked by scouts because you are the laying with the wrong SY team or do you drop. That is the key interesting question and what will change the trajectory of these teams.

I think it depends on the club and the age. In the U13-15 age, it’s not as big a deal to be playing on a team that doesn’t fit your grad year assuming there is room and you don’t get forced to play with your current age group. When you get to U16-18, it is a much bigger deal and you’re doing yourself a disservice if you’re not aligned.

Yeah, but if you become misaligned at a younger age, you're set back once you get older. This would be the best time to fight that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

So, for clarity, you would force an August birthday in the upper grade to play with the RL team if they get cut from the NL team instead of being able to play with the lower grade NL team as defined?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

So, for clarity, you would force an August birthday in the upper grade to play with the RL team if they get cut from the NL team instead of being able to play with the lower grade NL team as defined?

What do you think will happen to a Aug birthday that plays down a grade?

1st Everyone else on the team will think you're crazy

2nd Once your kid gets to recruiting age college coachs will ignore them because they're playing down. How do you guage the quality of a player thats doing well but graduating a year before everyone else on the team?

The real issue is with youngers there will be a temptation to play down for wins. However if you dont eventually play up with your grade your kid will be screwed. The same thing happens to biobanders but at least with them coaches are betting on a growth spurt when puberty hits. Which will allow them to play with their grade/age.

[Anonymous]

Aug and even Sept b-days just need to play with their grade. If they’re good enough to be recruited it won’t matter they’re playing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

Depends on the need of each individual club. It’s not a one size fits all situation.

Top ECNL girls program here, nobody plays up, including several national team players. So no Q3/Q4 players will stay in the same team next year, they will all go to the younger team or leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

Depends on the need of each individual club. It’s not a one size fits all situation.

Top ECNL girls program here, nobody plays up, including several national team players. So no Q3/Q4 players will stay in the same team next year, they will all go to the younger team or leave.

I correct myself. Only one girl played up for one season, then she joined the MWSL pro team. So if your DD is that material, then yes, she can stay in the same team next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

So, for clarity, you would force an August birthday in the upper grade to play with the RL team if they get cut from the NL team instead of being able to play with the lower grade NL team as defined?

What do you think will happen to a Aug birthday that plays down a grade?

1st Everyone else on the team will think you're crazy

2nd Once your kid gets to recruiting age college coachs will ignore them because they're playing down. How do you guage the quality of a player thats doing well but graduating a year before everyone else on the team?

The real issue is with youngers there will be a temptation to play down for wins. However if you dont eventually play up with your grade your kid will be screwed. The same thing happens to biobanders but at least with them coaches are betting on a growth spurt when puberty hits. Which will allow them to play with their grade/age.

We have a biobinding player with us for the 3rd year in a row. I don't think recruiting is his goal, but brag to play in MLSN but of course skipping the playing down part.