ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

ECNL = BOOT ball 4EVR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You're probably right.

But, I don't think they care.

[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.

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?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training 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:

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?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

[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.

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.

Retention is the driving reason for leagues switching back to school year.

[Anonymous]

Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Retention is the driving reason for leagues switching back to school year.

True, most people believe the data (and logic) supports this, but a few don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

Cohen's is a better way to measure magnitude and that says mostly medium impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably been posted a million times, but here's some of the research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11475004/

Have you looked at this research? Most of the positions do not have a statistically significant difference, and even those that do, it is mild, even q1vs q4. All and all RAE is far from a death blow for q4 kids. Life is a fight or flight reaction to many things in life, it develops creativity, character and will. But if a parent is going to be a Debbie downer then…

Sorry, this is wrong. chi-squared is statistically significant for all age groups at the club level but 1 and same for TID but for 1 age level. The data suggests the opposite of what you say, in fact.

Look at the odds ratio (magnitude of effect), it is a mild association and not a death blow at all, but I’m guessing we should still queue the Debbie Downer theme song for you.

What are you looking at?

Looking at U9 Club, Q1 vs Q4 odds ratio is 11.6.

Meaning of odds ration: "OR > 1: The event is more likely to occur in the group with the factor. For example, an OR of 2 means the event is twice as likely to happen in the group with the factor. "

Sorry, 2009 club, U13...not U9

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training 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:

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?

I couldn't disagree more... many kids are motivated in these difficult circumstances... I've seen it many times. When appropriately challenged and encouraged, I've seen my own kids rise to the occasion. Don't be so dismissive.

I've also seen Q4s more developed than Q1s, and vice versa. Don't sweat this stuff...

Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well.

Unfortunately we all suffer from bias and our eyes don't see enough samples to properly evaluate. That is why science and research is needed. And the science says you are incorrect.

The science does not say that... the science says that more Q1 and Q2 players make and stay on the top teams than Q3 and Q4 players. The science also says that there are SOME Q3 and Q4 that make it. So, if you want your Q3 or Q4 kid to be one of them... "Get your kids on the ball early, train with them when they are young, get them in competitive environments and on competitive teams, prioritize individual training as they get older, foster a love for the game... if they have any talent, all will be well."

The science sure as heck says that your opinion isn't fact because of your small n.