ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

Hmm CitySC MLSN B2011 might have something to say about this.

For the girls ECNL hat crowd on the boys side ECNL is considered 2nd tier to MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

Sure, Jan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

It's a chance for Surf b2011 to reshuffle, hopefully for the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Or they can't get on on an MLSN team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Or they can't get on on an MLSN team.

This is a pure personal choice. 99% of players will end up not playing professionally. We are playing for the experience. I just state the fact that Surf 2011 will not happen when ECNL changes to SY.

By the way, my kids play for both ECNL and MLS. I only care about finding a suitable team for them, not about chasing the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Or they can't get on on an MLSN team.

This is a pure personal choice. 99% of players will end up not playing professionally. We are playing for the experience. I just state the fact that Surf 2011 will not happen when ECNL changes to SY.

By the way, my kids play for both ECNL and MLS. I only care about finding a suitable team for them, not about chasing the name.

Bla bla bla...

Put more simply for the girls parents "we choose to play ECNL because they're 2nd best to MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Or they can't get on on an MLSN team.

This is a pure personal choice. 99% of players will end up not playing professionally. We are playing for the experience. I just state the fact that Surf 2011 will not happen when ECNL changes to SY.

By the way, my kids play for both ECNL and MLS. I only care about finding a suitable team for them, not about chasing the name.

Bla bla bla...

Put more simply for the girls parents "we choose to play ECNL because they're 2nd best to MLSN.

The words above show that you are just an idiot. Surf B2010 ECNL can beat most MLS teams in the Southwest Conference. Do I care? Absolutely not. Find a team that he has fun is the most important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Or they can't get on on an MLSN team.

This is a pure personal choice. 99% of players will end up not playing professionally. We are playing for the experience. I just state the fact that Surf 2011 will not happen when ECNL changes to SY.

By the way, my kids play for both ECNL and MLS. I only care about finding a suitable team for them, not about chasing the name.

Bla bla bla...

Put more simply for the girls parents "we choose to play ECNL because they're 2nd best to MLSN.

The words above show that you are just an idiot. Surf B2010 ECNL can beat most MLS teams in the Southwest Conference. Do I care? Absolutely not. Find a team that he has fun is the most important.

"Most" means very few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

Once announced we will find out who’s actually good at soccer from the Q1/2 kids. Who have been benefiting from RAE favoritism.

If your kids can still start and play at the ECNL level with RAE not in their favor they are going to make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

Once announced we will find out who’s actually good at soccer from the Q1/2 kids. Who have been benefiting from RAE favoritism.

If your kids can still start and play at the ECNL level with RAE not in their favor they are going to make it.

Yup! All the Q1 parents running their mouth birth month has nothing to do with it. Should NOT be against this as now their kids get a chance to showcase how good they are against older talented players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

Once announced we will find out who’s actually good at soccer from the Q1/2 kids. Who have been benefiting from RAE favoritism.

If your kids can still start and play at the ECNL level with RAE not in their favor they are going to make it.

That is not how RAE works. This whole line of argument that trapped parents are making really illustrates their misunderstanding of their own child’s position. The age cut off change would take 5 years, maybe 4 at best for you to see REA shift to the new cutoff “older” kids.

RAE is about ACCUMULATED advantage, not some weird birthday favoritism by coaches. Changing the cut off date, doesn’t remove the accumulated advantage, that will take time to work out of the system with the cohorts that are just entering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

Once announced we will find out who’s actually good at soccer from the Q1/2 kids. Who have been benefiting from RAE favoritism.

If your kids can still start and play at the ECNL level with RAE not in their favor they are going to make it.

That is not how RAE works. This whole line of argument that trapped parents are making really illustrates their misunderstanding of their own child’s position. The age cut off change would take 5 years, maybe 4 at best for you to see REA shift to the new cutoff “older” kids.

RAE is about ACCUMULATED advantage, not some weird birthday favoritism by coaches. Changing the cut off date, doesn’t remove the accumulated advantage, that will take time to work out of the system with the cohorts that are just entering.

Agreed that there are cumulated effects. But not making an argument for or against SY or CY, who would you place your bet on in a U14 vs U15 team in a game where they both have the same national ranking in their respective age groups?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Change will come. From SD Surf B2011 ECNL, I can see half of the players will be replaced, and 70% of the starters will be replaced by 2010 Q4 NL and RL players, plus some 2010 Q4 outsiders.

I can identify 1 2010 NL and 7 RL players (Surf has 2 RL teams) who can join the B2011 NL team and take starter positions after changing to SY. That is the main reason why Q1's parents are vehemently against it.

Yep, nailed it. They’re all terrified of this one 2010 group of 8 being turned loose and unchained to compete for rosters spots because the age cutoffs changed.

If not for the age cutoff change, these 14 year olds would have never been discovered. Hidden under 7 months of players that were worse, but better, but not really better because the birth month should be like a good handicap!

Once announced we will find out who’s actually good at soccer from the Q1/2 kids. Who have been benefiting from RAE favoritism.

If your kids can still start and play at the ECNL level with RAE not in their favor they are going to make it.

That is not how RAE works. This whole line of argument that trapped parents are making really illustrates their misunderstanding of their own child’s position. The age cut off change would take 5 years, maybe 4 at best for you to see REA shift to the new cutoff “older” kids.

RAE is about ACCUMULATED advantage, not some weird birthday favoritism by coaches. Changing the cut off date, doesn’t remove the accumulated advantage, that will take time to work out of the system with the cohorts that are just entering.

Agreed that there are cumulated effects. But not making an argument for or against SY or CY, who would you place your bet on in a U14 vs U15 team in a game where they both have the same national ranking in their respective age groups?

Now you're showing that you don't understand how rankings work.

If 2 teams have the same ranking, they play against the same-ish teams, and the predicted win/loss is even it doesn't matter how old or young the players are.

Math is telling you that the game is a coin flip.