ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

I'm the poster you're responding to and my daughter happens to be one of those Sept kids that made it through the funnel. My D was lucky enough to always be on the top team despite being the smallest and is likely setup to reap the rewards with the switch back to SY (and she's not so small anymore!). I've seen exactly what you've stated for numerous kids over my D's journey. It sucks the coaches/decision makers can't see what is clear and obvious to parents of younger/smaller kids.

The BY cultists know and that’s why they make disingenuous arguments for BY when the Youth Soccer landscape benefits more from a change to SY

[Anonymous]

The SEC and all its sports programs are leaving the ncaa. Sounds like big 10 and ACC will be joining with them. Big College soccer programs will now be closer to semi pro. No more 4 year eligibility it’s going to be make it crazy to actually get recruited because now women/men can leave mls/NWSL to play for let’s say North Carolina and potentially make more money.

Tell your kids to work hard and enjoy the ride because it’s going to get crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely Not going to happen, this would go against FIFA Standards, US Soccer Standards, US Youth National Team Standards, Olympics Standards and almost all International level sports governing body grouping standards.

This is why US Soccer moved to the birth year standard.

As we get closer to 1000 let’s remember the great quotes from the BY cultists….

Dude, let it go. Nobody is still “us vs theming” anymore except you.

From your continued poking at MLSN parents it’s pretty clear you’ve got a bottom team kid. So why do you even participate in this thread?

It will always be us vs them. For years they walked around noses high that their kids were so great when it reality 80% of top team players had nothing to do with skill and everything to do with benefiting from a favored system.
There time has come and gone and soon they will see what it’s like to have the system turn against you.

I can’t wait for all the 2010s to show up at tryouts this time next year for the 10/11 and parents will see how good their kids actually are.

)))

FYI, at the Cerritos Memorial Cup this weekend, Slammer B2011 ECNL (#6 in Southwest) suffered two 0:3 losses to two B2010 local teams. RAE is real.

Wait but I thought RAE was just an excuse not backed by data or science….

That’s “trapped” kids. Most people understand RAE is legit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. I honestly can't believe this thread made it to 1000 pages! Quite the achievement.

I'll throw in my $0.02 which I have done a few times in some sort over the course of 1000 pages...

My DD is currently playing ECNL U16. She absolutely benefits from the BY system - she's a early January birthday and was always tall for her age.

Interestingly, she has 3 players on her team that are post 9/1 cutoff birthdays that would drop down a team. The current U17 team has 3 also that would drop - one of those players is in my DD's HS class.

So, it all kinda comes out in the wash.

Here's to 2000!

This is what everyone has been trying to tell the 9/1 to 12/31 RL parents who are convinced that the SY change means a their kid is not super-Messi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. I honestly can't believe this thread made it to 1000 pages! Quite the achievement.

I'll throw in my $0.02 which I have done a few times in some sort over the course of 1000 pages...

My DD is currently playing ECNL U16. She absolutely benefits from the BY system - she's a early January birthday and was always tall for her age.

Interestingly, she has 3 players on her team that are post 9/1 cutoff birthdays that would drop down a team. The current U17 team has 3 also that would drop - one of those players is in my DD's HS class.

So, it all kinda comes out in the wash.

Here's to 2000!

This is what everyone has been trying to tell the 9/1 to 12/31 RL parents who are convinced that the SY change means a their kid is not super-Messi.

Now*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

I think most parents will welcome better, more experienced players to their kid's team (as long as their kid doesn't lose their spot OR a lot of playing time).

Yea…this doesn’t happen. Parents form cliques and are less welcoming than the players to new and better talent. Which, in turn, causes their players to be unwelcoming.

My DD plays up a year on her ECNL team, and is any given day the best girl on the field. All she gets is resentment and jealousy from parents and teammates alike. They are grateful for the winning due to her, but will organize team events and intentionally leave her out - small stuff like attending a Spirit match, a movie or haunted hayride.

The behavior is so shortsighted too. If is a college coach on the sideline watching, or if it’s eval season, they’ll literally be closed down, turn to find the pass and see that she is there waiting and calling, doing all the off ball work to help, and they’ll turn back into the defender and lose the ball rather than make the pass to her - they don’t want the highlight real of their amazing pass or assist to have her scoring - and that is 80% due to the parents giving their kids crap and the kid doesn’t want to hear it.

Ironically it’s actually worse in middle tier teams, DPL, classic, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. I honestly can't believe this thread made it to 1000 pages! Quite the achievement.

I'll throw in my $0.02 which I have done a few times in some sort over the course of 1000 pages...

My DD is currently playing ECNL U16. She absolutely benefits from the BY system - she's a early January birthday and was always tall for her age.

Interestingly, she has 3 players on her team that are post 9/1 cutoff birthdays that would drop down a team. The current U17 team has 3 also that would drop - one of those players is in my DD's HS class.

So, it all kinda comes out in the wash.

Here's to 2000!

This is what everyone has been trying to tell the 9/1 to 12/31 RL parents who are convinced that the SY change means a their kid is not super-Messi.

Most likely this will be the case IMO for girls. Elite starter level ECNL/GA players born 9/1-12/31 will be able to go make almost any ECNL team. Subs from ECNL GA team will knock off the current subs from ECNL teams of similar ranking the year below maybe slightly better.
Some RL girls will sneak into the lower level ECNL teams and get various spots as a role player.

It won’t be a complete take over majority of ECNL team but you will see 40-50% turnover on ECNL teams next year.

If your kid is a bench player with a Jan to Aug bday they are definitely going RL or GA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

I think most parents will welcome better, more experienced players to their kid's team (as long as their kid doesn't lose their spot OR a lot of playing time).

Yea…this doesn’t happen. Parents form cliques and are less welcoming than the players to new and better talent. Which, in turn, causes their players to be unwelcoming.

My DD plays up a year on her ECNL team, and is any given day the best girl on the field. All she gets is resentment and jealousy from parents and teammates alike. They are grateful for the winning due to her, but will organize team events and intentionally leave her out - small stuff like attending a Spirit match, a movie or haunted hayride.

The behavior is so shortsighted too. If is a college coach on the sideline watching, or if it’s eval season, they’ll literally be closed down, turn to find the pass and see that she is there waiting and calling, doing all the off ball work to help, and they’ll turn back into the defender and lose the ball rather than make the pass to her - they don’t want the highlight real of their amazing pass or assist to have her scoring - and that is 80% due to the parents giving their kids crap and the kid doesn’t want to hear it.

Ironically it’s actually worse in middle tier teams, DPL, classic, etc.

My kids team had a clique that would do this. The ringleader parent got all their buddies together and put together a package deal to a different club. After changing clubs the package deal fell apart and most of the kids quit. The only one left was ringleader and his kid. We played their team about 1.5 years later and ringleader had no friends on the new team. His kid quit shortly after our team beat them.

I felt bad for the guy because his kid quitting was 100% because of his actions. But not enough to do or say anything about it. The guy was toxic to be around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

I agree that age is one of many factors... I just think it is a bit overblown. Kids develop at different ages. My January birthday developed very late, my December birthday very early, etc. etc. Every NL and RL team I look at at our club has anywhere from 2-6 Q4 players, I understand this is not comprehensive, but I am sure it's not uncommon. No matter when your child is born, put a ball at their feet early, train with them, put them in competitive environments with good coaches, ensure they train on thier own as they get older, foster a love for the game, if they have any talent all will be well.

That's way too naive.

Kids aren't motivated to train or train harder or keep playing when there told there are not that good compared to the older kids and stuck on the second or lower and are stuck at the less glamorous positions. So other sports find them and they quit soccer or keep it as gig work.

Team just demoted all 5 Q4s for next year. (Club is run by morons who have gone in the opposite direction to prepare for the age change.) You think that fosters love for the game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

I think most parents will welcome better, more experienced players to their kid's team (as long as their kid doesn't lose their spot OR a lot of playing time).

Yea…this doesn’t happen. Parents form cliques and are less welcoming than the players to new and better talent. Which, in turn, causes their players to be unwelcoming.

My DD plays up a year on her ECNL team, and is any given day the best girl on the field. All she gets is resentment and jealousy from parents and teammates alike. They are grateful for the winning due to her, but will organize team events and intentionally leave her out - small stuff like attending a Spirit match, a movie or haunted hayride.

The behavior is so shortsighted too. If is a college coach on the sideline watching, or if it’s eval season, they’ll literally be closed down, turn to find the pass and see that she is there waiting and calling, doing all the off ball work to help, and they’ll turn back into the defender and lose the ball rather than make the pass to her - they don’t want the highlight real of their amazing pass or assist to have her scoring - and that is 80% due to the parents giving their kids crap and the kid doesn’t want to hear it.

Ironically it’s actually worse in middle tier teams, DPL, classic, etc.

It REALLY depends on the club/team. There are some toxic parents everywhere but also some people who are realistic about youth soccer that can keep it all in perspective. Those are the best to be around!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. I honestly can't believe this thread made it to 1000 pages! Quite the achievement.

I'll throw in my $0.02 which I have done a few times in some sort over the course of 1000 pages...

My DD is currently playing ECNL U16. She absolutely benefits from the BY system - she's a early January birthday and was always tall for her age.

Interestingly, she has 3 players on her team that are post 9/1 cutoff birthdays that would drop down a team. The current U17 team has 3 also that would drop - one of those players is in my DD's HS class.

So, it all kinda comes out in the wash.

Here's to 2000!

This is what everyone has been trying to tell the 9/1 to 12/31 RL parents who are convinced that the SY change means a their kid is not super-Messi.

Most likely this will be the case IMO for girls. Elite starter level ECNL/GA players born 9/1-12/31 will be able to go make almost any ECNL team. Subs from ECNL GA team will knock off the current subs from ECNL teams of similar ranking the year below maybe slightly better.
Some RL girls will sneak into the lower level ECNL teams and get various spots as a role player.

It won’t be a complete take over majority of ECNL team but you will see 40-50% turnover on ECNL teams next year.

If your kid is a bench player with a Jan to Aug bday they are definitely going RL or GA

Regardless of the age, if you are bench player, you are ALREADY looking for a new club. Just saw this happen during THIS tryout season with players coming/going. Yes, with the age change, there'll be MORE turnover than usual, but a lot of this youth soccer trash talk is just that.

[Anonymous]

Imagine if MLSNext and ECNL have different age cutoffs… the system will be overrun with clubhopping every year as kids and parents chase their kids growth spurts for that extra advantage until it catches up to them. Less continuity for teams/clubs and less focus on development. Way to go US Soccer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

People are throwing out numbers across whole teams while ignoring where, within the team pecking order, most of the two ends of the birthday spectrum sit. By U13-15, most of the top B team players are Fall birthdays while most of the bottom A team players are the early calendar birthdays. This is what I'm seeing at my daughter's ECNL club. Having watched them over the years, the younger kids were highly disproportionately placed on B teams at U8-9. As they have gotten older, those kids have risen in the ranks relative to the field. The oldest were highly disproportionately placed on A team at U8-9, and they have fallen in ranking over the years. As kids fall, they generally hang on to the A bench until there's a very clear switch in ability with the top B kids. Likewise, the top B kids get stuck at the top of B for a while until they very clearly have overtaken many on A. Because of where they started, and their natural trajectory, the middle age groups are extra ripe for moves from B to A and vice versa in a disruption of the status quo.

My Q4 daughter made the transition from B to A at U13. I've seen some messages in this thread that show a lot of animosity toward the Q1 parents. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to most, but I get where it's coming from. Along the journey with a younger kid, there are some early developer parents who are really mean about how their kid is better than yours. At U13-14, when some of those "terrible" kids have overtaken theirs, they are whining to the coaches and club about how they did a terrible job developing their kid. They still don't acknowledge that maybe their kid was just trucking down younger kids at 10 years old because they outweighed them by 10+ pounds and the littler kids had insufficient speed and skill to counter it. Of course, there were plenty of parents who could see that the hard-working younger kid was catching up every year, and they knew to be nice to a future teammate.

PP - also it's not 10lbs more like 40-50lbs at times which is ridiculous

50 pounds difference between a January and December kid?

Absolutely for girls U12 (and playing U13s a lot for 11 v11)