ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

Not that they ever would do it or could survive in our current system, but they should have 6-month teams, especially at younger ages. I think it would enhance development and reduce the effects of RAE. It sort of exists now with how clubs have a/b teams, but that system loses far too many from the b team who lose interest as the perception of support and resources always lie with the A team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

Not that they ever would do it or could survive in our current system, but they should have 6-month teams, especially at younger ages. I think it would enhance development and reduce the effects of RAE. It sort of exists now with how clubs have a/b teams, but that system loses far too many from the b team who lose interest as the perception of support and resources always lie with the A team.

SY should help some with retention, how much is hard to say. But what we need is for kids and more importantly parents to view the B and C teams as an opportunity and a motivator. Soccer development, like most everything in life, is a marathon and a roller coaster; embrace it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

Not that they ever would do it or could survive in our current system, but they should have 6-month teams, especially at younger ages. I think it would enhance development and reduce the effects of RAE. It sort of exists now with how clubs have a/b teams, but that system loses far too many from the b team who lose interest as the perception of support and resources always lie with the A team.

SY should help some with retention, how much is hard to say. But what we need is for kids and more importantly parents to view the B and C teams as an opportunity and a motivator. Soccer development, like most everything in life, is a marathon and a roller coaster; embrace it.

B and C teams can be fine for development as long as there are still cuts off the bottom. Imo the problem with lower teams is often that the last 4-5 on the team are not motivated to get better and completely disrupt team play by being outrageously weak. So the top of the B/C team has to try to carry the team with too much 1v1 dribbling. They don't learn to trust teammates and move off the ball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

Not that they ever would do it or could survive in our current system, but they should have 6-month teams, especially at younger ages. I think it would enhance development and reduce the effects of RAE. It sort of exists now with how clubs have a/b teams, but that system loses far too many from the b team who lose interest as the perception of support and resources always lie with the A team.

SY should help some with retention, how much is hard to say. But what we need is for kids and more importantly parents to view the B and C teams as an opportunity and a motivator. Soccer development, like most everything in life, is a marathon and a roller coaster; embrace it.

B and C teams can be fine for development as long as there are still cuts off the bottom. Imo the problem with lower teams is often that the last 4-5 on the team are not motivated to get better and completely disrupt team play by being outrageously weak. So the top of the B/C team has to try to carry the team with too much 1v1 dribbling. They don't learn to trust teammates and move off the ball.

(Same poster) On the flip side, imo the problem with being at the bottom of A is that you rely too much on your teammates and just rush to get rid of the ball to a better teammate.

[Anonymous]

If your fine never taking a pk, corner direct kick or doing anything meaningful of a team go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL has no plans to announce anything regarding the age change until after this season is over. Most likely a late summer or early fall announcement.

That's when the league rules are normally released..............

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

I can see your point. I guess the better argument would be playing up potentially against kids one calendar year is a big difference compared to being in a group of kids most likely around the same age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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)

We have had the "best" few players sub up from 2013, a team ranked best in our state, to 2012. I've seen them play among 2013 and they are faster, stronger, and bigger than almost everyone on the field. They get out-ran and tossed around with 2012. It's very apparent they are younger. They still make good passes, but they can no longer dribble by anyone, and they lose 50/50s consistently. You can see that they have developed a good soccer IQ from dominating their own age group on a good team, but the things they're trying just aren't very effective due to the physical disadvantage. They'd still be A team players at most clubs in 2012, but if they were at one of the top clubs in our state, they would be B teamers with a birthday just 1-2 months earlier. The size and speed changes each year are massive in middle school. But some grow a lot and get worse, so it's not a rapid improvement for everyone.

In my area the number one 2012 team in their local ECNL league (undefeated) ranked top 20 nationally played up for 2011 state playoffs lost 3-1 to a GA team that’s 5th in their GA league.

People who don’t think a 4 month shift is going to matter are going to be surprised.

The gaping hole in your argument is that 2011 team is more than the SeptQ4 players your top team will join.

On top of that this year the 2012 age group is the first playing 11v11 for the first time. This magnifies age differences because the 2011s would be in year 2 of 11v11. Much more nuance to this example, it appears.

This specific group played up 2011 last year as well at the NPL level. So that argument doesn’t work for this specific team. Also many of the top ECNL clubs have their teams skip last year of 9v9 in my area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE effects are real but get weaker as players reach maturity. And at U12 the players on the younger side of the age-group may be better off playing and developing on the second team with more playing time. For a committed player these would level up by U15/U16. And there no real “#1 in the nation team” at U8. There’s only teams that do a good job developing their kids and teams that don’t. W/L doesn’t matter at that age. The clubs focusing on winning at U9/U10 likely aren’t doing as well developing their pool of players as those focusing on development. By the time teams are truly “more elite” they aren’t “younger” any more, and RAE is less extreme by the ages where there is a meaningful distinction for “elite” teams.

I understand why Q4 parents think that BY disadvantages their kids. I don’t understand why they think that SY is somehow more fair or more just. It just advantages Q4 kids and disadvantages Q3 kids. I have no dog in this fight with a Q1 DD but RAE doesn’t justify the shift because there will always be an RAE effect from any range of date cutoffs. The justification to go SY over BY has to be something other than RAE.

No doubt a shift in pools from BY to SY will shuffle teams bc a different player pool will be available. But I suspect at the younger ages this will just move Q4 kids that were developing on second teams and would have made first teams by U14/U15 into first team players and move comparable Q3 players to the second team, where they’ll get more playing time and develop instead.

Parent of a q4. I don’t think SY is more fair compared to BY, it just shifts the RAE to benefit sept-dec birthdays. Maybe slightly more fair as maturity is more similar within the same grade than between grades, but I’m sure that can be argued otherwise.

The previous change to BY was to give the benefit of the RAE to the oldest kids possible for ynt. That created real issues for trapped players. Yes, the change back will benefit my kid to some extent depending on which leagues switch, but I am happier that I won’t have a trapped 8th grader, I won’t be dealing with recruiting on the wrong cycle (if this is applicable to him at that time), and I won’t be dealing with finding him a new team senior year. SY isn’t “more fair” but it solves these problems for most kids.

Slight more fair is equal to more fair. So you saying SY is not more fair than BY falls apart or at least that first statement doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL has no plans to announce anything regarding the age change until after this season is over. Most likely a late summer or early fall announcement.

That's when the league rules are normally released..............

Don’t hold your breath waiting is all I meant.

[Anonymous]

New ECNL podcast update

Here’s the summary

Your kid has less than 1% chance to go pro and MLSN is focused on trying to figure out development and not win games.

So everyone should not play MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New ECNL podcast update

Here’s the summary

Your kid has less than 1% chance to go pro and MLSN is focused on trying to figure out development and not win games.

So everyone should not play MLSN.

That's their competitor so of course they'd criticize. That's the problem with such self-interested podcasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where I am from almost all kids start playing Rec which is grade based. When they out grow that then switch to the BY competitive system. That would then mean the Q4 kids would now playing competitive would be playing against kids that have been playing soccer a year longer than them usually, in school a year longer definitely, in addition to being youngest, which all adds up.

Not that they ever would do it or could survive in our current system, but they should have 6-month teams, especially at younger ages. I think it would enhance development and reduce the effects of RAE. It sort of exists now with how clubs have a/b teams, but that system loses far too many from the b team who lose interest as the perception of support and resources always lie with the A team.

SY should help some with retention, how much is hard to say. But what we need is for kids and more importantly parents to view the B and C teams as an opportunity and a motivator. Soccer development, like most everything in life, is a marathon and a roller coaster; embrace it.

Why are we trotting out the retention canard again?

The data doesn’t support that theory. Retention is cyclical and the issues hurting youth sports retention are found in all sports, including the multitude of sports that were always SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New ECNL podcast update

Here’s the summary

Your kid has less than 1% chance to go pro and MLSN is focused on trying to figure out development and not win games.

So everyone should not play MLSN.

That's their competitor so of course they'd criticize. That's the problem with such self-interested podcasts.

Doug and Christian are stuck in the 90s and think they know everything. They’re pretty awful blowhards.

They were touting that they’d bring an RAE specialist on, and then nixed them because they were just a primary care physician and they didn’t actually support what Christian and Doug had been suggesting…that’s the sort of “expert” guidance you get from them.