ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the top clubs on the girls side moving to GA, will they too follow the school year vs calendar?

Top clubs? What a loaded statement.

Top BOYS clubs moving their girls to GA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

"Your right [then I will add things that you didn't say]" Well done.

Fair enough maybe, I figured you were the person I was going back and forth with before... whether you are or not, I was responding to the general tone of the discussion. Somehow as part of this discussion people are trying to paint me as a person that doesn't agree with the general stipulations of RAE, that is not acurate. My point from the beginning has been that proactive players and parents can mitigate the impacts of RAE by putting in the work. This approach will benefit your children both inside and outside the game...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the commissioner, GA is announcing SY this week. Conference announcement today. SY announcement tomorrow?

Source?

Source=Trish the Commish

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the commissioner, GA is announcing SY this week. Conference announcement today. SY announcement tomorrow?

Source?

Source=Trish the Commish

Does Trish the Commish have any info about mlsnext? Who is the poster who claims to speak with her weekly?

[Anonymous]

She only said GA has to move to school year with the others. No mention of MLS Next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She only said GA has to move to school year with the others. No mention of MLS Next

Yes but there must be some communication between the two. I’m not assuming they will do exactly the same thing so hoping to hear something specific to mlsnext.

[Anonymous]

MLSNext would reduce their player pool by more than half assuming ECNL and other orgs go SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLSNext would reduce their player pool by more than half assuming ECNL and other orgs go SY

Half? Isn’t everyone else and all u8-u12 going to be SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSNext would reduce their player pool by more than half assuming ECNL and other orgs go SY

Half? Isn’t everyone else and all u8-u12 going to be SY?

Right, and to maintain even half of the top players, Next would have to rely on club hopping away from ECNL or other regional leagues at u13. So if they rely on club hopping to chase RAE, they will get a pool that is even more based on physical maturity rather than technical and IQ. So they lose overall numbers and wind up with a less percentage of those being more skilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

You are right, players and parents should just give up if they are Q4 (or Q3 starting next year) ... what is your point? I acknowledge it is more difficult for those players; my point is that there are things that can be done to combat the statistics.

"Your right [then I will add things that you didn't say]" Well done.

Fair enough maybe, I figured you were the person I was going back and forth with before... whether you are or not, I was responding to the general tone of the discussion. Somehow as part of this discussion people are trying to paint me as a person that doesn't agree with the general stipulations of RAE, that is not acurate. My point from the beginning has been that proactive players and parents can mitigate the impacts of RAE by putting in the work. This approach will benefit your children both inside and outside the game...

Person 1: Hey, here's some data that Q4s with a school year cutoff are nearly three times less likely to be on top club teams.
Person 2: What are you crying about? You should have foreseen this when your November-born kid was 6 years old and "mitigated" it by training him/her twice as hard as the kids born earlier in the birth year.

Is that about right?

[Anonymous]

Odds GA or "Trish" actually announce tomorrow? I say +300 odds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Odds GA or "Trish" actually announce tomorrow? I say +300 odds

+150

[Anonymous]

+1000
ECNL not even making announcement until after 24/25 season is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1000
ECNL not even making announcement until after 24/25 season is over.

ECNL is led by buffoons.

[Anonymous]

ECNL made their announcement through US Club. Done deal. No announcement needed.