ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just pointing out the obvious.

If ECNLs SY motives were truly for "trapped" players they could allow 3-4 players from each team to play down a year in ECNL league and events.

Instead ECNL is trying to force everyone to change to their demands.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19i_HAUsN75dvDyLkg76QK9mQYbZ_MIbj/edit

2.9 in their rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting about how trapped players still get field time even if their team goes into a sit out for HS soccer. Leagues have things in place to give trapped players opportunities, people then complain about that its more on recruiting than matches/training. There will always be some excuse for the change that affects a small population.

Trapped is more a mentality otherwise no trapped player would make it to college ball

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

It isn't pushback. Sorry your kid was trapped but if the cutoff changes it won't change the player that your kid is currently. It will make some things more convenient, but don't for a minute think that ECNL is doing this for your trapped player, they are doing it to help out College Coaches and make class recruiting a tad easier for THEM. It has nothing to do with your trapped player and her "struggles" or inconvenience.

You went on some unrelated tangents there but this whole thread is about RAE and I get the push from Q4, just surprised by the high level nervousness from Q1 parents. So then the debate should be how to address RAE more so than what cutoff to use. No?

Birth year wasn't intended to fix RAE as much as it was to make it more obvious.

RAE occurs at younger ages when a year of growth at 10 years old is significant in terms of development. By HS age the impact/damage has already been done.

There is always going to be Q1 because of arbitrary cutoffs.

I've gone through both age cutoffs and nothing changed other than the faces on the team. Kids were not magically better or worse players based on the switch. This is what folks are telling you.

I'm fine with making the switch but it should be phased in at younger ages and then just move forward from then on. There are kids currently playing who started off playing under school cutoffs to have it change to birth year. Enough of the yoyo.

Frankly, I'm just sick of the soccer overlords making these sweeping changes every other year more than I'm concerned with how it would impact my kid.

And when the kids are older and they are on a team they like only to have that broken up always sucks, yes, even if your kid is trapped.

Birth year was not “intended to fix RAE”

Birth year was intended to unify the standard to international norms and the NTs.

The secondary benefit to unifying with international norms is that the playing field is flat and RAE could be reduced through the ability to better benchmark at various geographical levels and competitive levels.

The internet has history…you can go back and see what US Soccer said in 2015 about why they moved to birth year, and you can also go back and probably see what your club sent out to the parents when that change happened.

I don’t understand the need for the pro-SY people to just keep pretending standardizing to a global and highest level competition standard doesn’t make sense or allow for better opportunity for players at all level.

I mean I guess because they’re just intent on finding ways to change the system to benefit their kids. But here’s the reality check, your sophomore Q3 Q4 kid is going to be MORE disadvantaged. You can’t unwind RAE’s accumulated disadvantage (if it affected your child). Those that are treading water will start to drown because they’ll be competing in a pool of Q3/Q4 kids that were not affected by RAE, and Q1/Q2 kids that will bump up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the skyrocketing costs to participate in Pay-to-Play youth soccer, bad coaching plus the toxic parents as seen on sidelines each weekend and in DCUM, a drop-off in participation and enrollment in kids soccer is no surprise.

There is no such drop off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the skyrocketing costs to participate in Pay-to-Play youth soccer, bad coaching plus the toxic parents as seen on sidelines each weekend and in DCUM, a drop-off in participation and enrollment in kids soccer is no surprise.

There is no such drop off.

Please quote a source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting about how trapped players still get field time even if their team goes into a sit out for HS soccer. Leagues have things in place to give trapped players opportunities, people then complain about that its more on recruiting than matches/training. There will always be some excuse for the change that affects a small population.

Trapped is more a mentality otherwise no trapped player would make it to college ball

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

It isn't pushback. Sorry your kid was trapped but if the cutoff changes it won't change the player that your kid is currently. It will make some things more convenient, but don't for a minute think that ECNL is doing this for your trapped player, they are doing it to help out College Coaches and make class recruiting a tad easier for THEM. It has nothing to do with your trapped player and her "struggles" or inconvenience.

You went on some unrelated tangents there but this whole thread is about RAE and I get the push from Q4, just surprised by the high level nervousness from Q1 parents. So then the debate should be how to address RAE more so than what cutoff to use. No?

Birth year wasn't intended to fix RAE as much as it was to make it more obvious.

RAE occurs at younger ages when a year of growth at 10 years old is significant in terms of development. By HS age the impact/damage has already been done.

There is always going to be Q1 because of arbitrary cutoffs.

I've gone through both age cutoffs and nothing changed other than the faces on the team. Kids were not magically better or worse players based on the switch. This is what folks are telling you.

I'm fine with making the switch but it should be phased in at younger ages and then just move forward from then on. There are kids currently playing who started off playing under school cutoffs to have it change to birth year. Enough of the yoyo.

Frankly, I'm just sick of the soccer overlords making these sweeping changes every other year more than I'm concerned with how it would impact my kid.

And when the kids are older and they are on a team they like only to have that broken up always sucks, yes, even if your kid is trapped.

Birth year was not “intended to fix RAE”

Birth year was intended to unify the standard to international norms and the NTs.

The secondary benefit to unifying with international norms is that the playing field is flat and RAE could be reduced through the ability to better benchmark at various geographical levels and competitive levels.

The internet has history…you can go back and see what US Soccer said in 2015 about why they moved to birth year, and you can also go back and probably see what your club sent out to the parents when that change happened.

I don’t understand the need for the pro-SY people to just keep pretending standardizing to a global and highest level competition standard doesn’t make sense or allow for better opportunity for players at all level.

I mean I guess because they’re just intent on finding ways to change the system to benefit their kids. But here’s the reality check, your sophomore Q3 Q4 kid is going to be MORE disadvantaged. You can’t unwind RAE’s accumulated disadvantage (if it affected your child). Those that are treading water will start to drown because they’ll be competing in a pool of Q3/Q4 kids that were not affected by RAE, and Q1/Q2 kids that will bump up.

I know why they did it. I was there. RAE was a secondary excuse in that it was more obvious.

But no, they were never interested in fixing RAE as much as they were in aligning our players with International RAE.

Regardless. you are correct that the shifting sands for older kids will only cause disruption without really fixing much of anything.

For younger kids moving forward it will make attending showcase games a little more convenient for college coaches. The 3 months of a partial club season will be learned was not that impactful of a loss, but you know, people and their feelings. They didn't get recruited because they missed a spring or fall season due to HS soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But no, they were never interested in fixing RAE as much as they were in aligning our players with International RAE.

There it is. All that disruption, and all the problems it created, was really just to make our youth national teams' finishes a little better. It probably doesn't even affect our senior national teams. Millions of kids dealt with the fallout so a handful could finish fifth instead of fifteenth playing in relative obscurity in a youth world cup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just pointing out the obvious.

If ECNLs SY motives were truly for "trapped" players they could allow 3-4 players from each team to play down a year in ECNL league and events.

Instead ECNL is trying to force everyone to change to their demands.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19i_HAUsN75dvDyLkg76QK9mQYbZ_MIbj/edit

2.9 in their rules

Well there you go trapped player issue is already resolved.

Why is ECNL pushing for everyone to change away from Jan 1 to Aug 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just pointing out the obvious.

If ECNLs SY motives were truly for "trapped" players they could allow 3-4 players from each team to play down a year in ECNL league and events.

Instead ECNL is trying to force everyone to change to their demands.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19i_HAUsN75dvDyLkg76QK9mQYbZ_MIbj/edit

2.9 in their rules

Well there you go trapped player issue is already resolved.

Why is ECNL pushing for everyone to change away from Jan 1 to Aug 1?

Judging from parents here, social reasons and recruiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But no, they were never interested in fixing RAE as much as they were in aligning our players with International RAE.

There it is. All that disruption, and all the problems it created, was really just to make our youth national teams' finishes a little better. It probably doesn't even affect our senior national teams. Millions of kids dealt with the fallout so a handful could finish fifth instead of fifteenth playing in relative obscurity in a youth world cup.

Changing back to SY will improve the soccer experience of 33% of trapped players, or 1 million. Don't argue with the corner case for that tiny fraction of that number.

[Anonymous]

You can make legitimate arguments both ways.

But ultimately decisions should be made that benefit the *majority* of youth players.

What benefits the minority of players or college coaches or whoever else, is simply not important.

Put the players first. Put the majority first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can make legitimate arguments both ways.

But ultimately decisions should be made that benefit the *majority* of youth players.

What benefits the minority of players or college coaches or whoever else, is simply not important.

Put the players first. Put the majority first.

Right so going back to school year puts the majority first. Greatly reducing the trapped player issue doesn't negatively impact anyone. Unless you want to point to RAE which there will never be a "majority" benefiting from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting about how trapped players still get field time even if their team goes into a sit out for HS soccer. Leagues have things in place to give trapped players opportunities, people then complain about that its more on recruiting than matches/training. There will always be some excuse for the change that affects a small population.

Trapped is more a mentality otherwise no trapped player would make it to college ball

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Not clear on where your question is coming from as it relates to RAE.

Trapped isn't RAE
You can be November born and not a late developer.

Youth soccer categories are based on age with the older of the group having an advantage per RAE research. Trapped players born in Sept- Dec are the youngest and are currently on the wrong side of RAE.

This is such an over simplification of RAE that it’s borderline inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Whiners vs Winners

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whiners vs Winners

Winning mentality vs Whining mentality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just pointing out the obvious.

If ECNLs SY motives were truly for "trapped" players they could allow 3-4 players from each team to play down a year in ECNL league and events.

Instead ECNL is trying to force everyone to change to their demands.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19i_HAUsN75dvDyLkg76QK9mQYbZ_MIbj/edit

2.9 in their rules

Well there you go trapped player issue is already resolved.

Why is ECNL pushing for everyone to change away from Jan 1 to Aug 1?

Only 2 players (what happens if you have more?) and a lot of clubs don't offer it as they don't want to mess up the chemistry with the younger team. Also, trapped players are a huge issue during the recrutiing years which if you read over the 90+ pages you'll see debated at length.