ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

Every Sep to Dec player is a physical late developer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole trapped player stuff being blown out of proportion are just most parents building ready-made excuses for their kids

While some so-called trapped players are working their ass off and doing as well or better than the Jan-Aug kids.

ECNL would just say those kids are the exception to the rule.

All top performers in sports are exceptional and a small percentage of the masses

[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?

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

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

By U17 RAE all but disappears
Gone at U18

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the kids can do homework together between tournament games

[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?

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

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

I don’t think the PP is missing nuance. If the argument is so nuanced the obvious point the PP is making can’t be taken in earnest, then maybe it isn’t really all that persuasive or nuanced as one might think?

The reality is, the SYstans are trying to create a structural advantage for their children because they feel that if their children had that advantage their children would have a better outcome. The PP is saying that the SYstan perspective is based on feelings and wishes, not facts.

[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?

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.

Every Sep to Dec player is a physical late developer?

In VictimLand absolutely!

[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?

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.

Every Sep to Dec player is a physical late developer?

Just read the Wiki page for RAE.

[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.

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

I don’t think the PP is missing nuance. If the argument is so nuanced the obvious point the PP is making can’t be taken in earnest, then maybe it isn’t really all that persuasive or nuanced as one might think?

The reality is, the SYstans are trying to create a structural advantage for their children because they feel that if their children had that advantage their children would have a better outcome. The PP is saying that the SYstan perspective is based on feelings and wishes, not facts.

Yeah, got it. They are either ignoring RAE studies or are dismissing their finding.

[Anonymous]

Stop it. Please. This is not going to happen.

[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.

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

I don’t think the PP is missing nuance. If the argument is so nuanced the obvious point the PP is making can’t be taken in earnest, then maybe it isn’t really all that persuasive or nuanced as one might think?

The reality is, the SYstans are trying to create a structural advantage for their children because they feel that if their children had that advantage their children would have a better outcome. The PP is saying that the SYstan perspective is based on feelings and wishes, not facts.

Yeah, got it. They are either ignoring RAE studies or are dismissing their finding.

Or….you don’t understand RAE as much as you think you do? And, the point PP made was not helpful to your point of view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

I don’t think the PP is missing nuance. If the argument is so nuanced the obvious point the PP is making can’t be taken in earnest, then maybe it isn’t really all that persuasive or nuanced as one might think?

The reality is, the SYstans are trying to create a structural advantage for their children because they feel that if their children had that advantage their children would have a better outcome. The PP is saying that the SYstan perspective is based on feelings and wishes, not facts.

Yeah, got it. They are either ignoring RAE studies or are dismissing their finding.

Or….you don’t understand RAE as much as you think you do? And, the point PP made was not helpful to your point of view?

It wasn't relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

😆... yes, switch to SY and all of a sudden Cavan Sullivan is the worst 2009 player around 😂😂

Morons

Fyi, the the false belief that the switch to SY would create the next Messi was from Q1 protectionist, not a reason given from Q4 people.

You seem to be missing nuance on purpose. Older kids in an age bracket will seem better and be more valuable to clubs trying to win games. Even Billy Idol gets it. But here we have 90 plus pages of talking past each other when 50 percent won't except that climate change, I mean the relative age effect, is real.

I say we get to 120 pages in a week.

I don’t think the PP is missing nuance. If the argument is so nuanced the obvious point the PP is making can’t be taken in earnest, then maybe it isn’t really all that persuasive or nuanced as one might think?

The reality is, the SYstans are trying to create a structural advantage for their children because they feel that if their children had that advantage their children would have a better outcome. The PP is saying that the SYstan perspective is based on feelings and wishes, not facts.

Yeah, got it. They are either ignoring RAE studies or are dismissing their finding.

Or….you don’t understand RAE as much as you think you do? And, the point PP made was not helpful to your point of view?

It wasn't relevant.

😒

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop it. Please. This is not going to happen.

Maybe not. But until someone makes some more convincing arguments for the benefits of BY cutoffs to the bottom 99.9% of players, to offset the costs, I don't think the issue will ever go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop it. Please. This is not going to happen.

Maybe not. But until someone makes some more convincing arguments for the benefits of BY cutoffs to the bottom 99.9% of players, to offset the costs, I don't think the issue will ever go away.

Argue the benefits of BY?
Is this a joke?

You need to focus on the benefits of discipline and training well consistently.
Stop seeking ready-made excuses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop it. Please. This is not going to happen.

Maybe not. But until someone makes some more convincing arguments for the benefits of BY cutoffs to the bottom 99.9% of players, to offset the costs, I don't think the issue will ever go away.

Argue the benefits of BY?
Is this a joke?

You need to focus on the benefits of discipline and training well consistently.
Stop seeking ready-made excuses

100%

The whole “benefit” argument belies the motivation for SY fans.

Regardless, they’ll also reject any argument in support of BY because they’re not discussing in good faith or with transparent motivation.