I understand what you’re saying, it’s not the same as the point I’m making. You’re right, so am I - two different points. We can all agree that the change in age bands will make no difference to the vast majority of 17yo right? 16yo probably too, 15yo, most likely. 14yo, same. 13yo, maybe a bit. 12, maybe a bit more, etc… When you get down to 7 or 8, that’s when making the “top team” early begins the accumulation of benefits. At 9/10 the separations and filtering have largely already happened. Each year you might see a couple kids drop off and a couple new kids move on - but no big swings. That allows for the accumulation of benefits to continue accruing for the vast majority of kids already filtered in. Are there exceptions. Sure. |
PP is correct. It’s not about who has caught up in growth by what age. It’s the point that by age 7-8, the biggest and strongest kids, who tend to be the oldest in however that age bracket is defined, get on the best teams with the best coaches and even start to play more. It’s true and it’s real. The system favors older kids and early developers who accumulate those benefits.
It’s also true that early developers might not be the older kids—but at young ages, a 9 or 10 month age difference is a huge developmental difference. So the general trend is older = bigger and stronger. Even at 8 years old, on my DCs former team, the coach couldn’t help putting the biggest kid in at striker and letting them score 8 goals in a game. Literally no one else got the ball. That kid is now on a top team and likely early college recruit, but no longer bigger, faster, or more talented than many others. Just better coached with more confidence. |
My kid is on an olders top team of a top 20 nationally club. She's played on the same top club/team since she was 5.
There are 5 players currently on the team now that were on the team when they were 5 years old. There's currently 4-5 trapped players (one is out hurt). My daughter is a Sept birthday. Current roster is 22 What all this means is 17 of the players weren't with the team at 5 years old. It also means that 17-18 were born Jan 1st to Sept 1st. This means 23% are trapped players but Sept-Dec is 33% of a 12 month calendar. This means that theres 10% variance that can be attributed to RAE if you believe in that kind of thing. On a BY team! The person that keeps posting about RAE is ridiculious. They're likely a professional victim that's latched onto an excuse that can be molded into whatever that want it to be. At some point thet need to step up and stop making excuses. I like how the professional rae victim said that the biggest kids are always Jan birthdays. This can be true but it can also be false. Not every Jan birthday will be the biggest kid. I also like how the professional rae victim said that being on the top team means getting the best coachs and resources. This is not true, theres good 1st team coaches and really poor 1st team coaches. Also on a 2nd team players will get more opportunities to play multiple positions. This is important because positions players play when they're 5 most likely wont be what they play at 16. Then they bring up the confidence thing. Some of the most confident players Ive seen stayed on the 2nd team for a long time just to build up confidence. The professional rae victim is mostly nonsense. Yes there are a large number of Jan birthdays. But this doesn't mean if your kid isnt doing private lessons and futsal 2-3 hours a week on top of regular practice that they cant be a top player. My daughter played soccer with the boys every lunch in elementary school. I've never seen a trapped player sept-dec birthday that puts in the extra work not get noticed and opportunities. I have seen parents talk about rae when their kid got cut. As a parent you humor them but everyone knew that the issue wasnt rae. |
Yeah, makes sense that RAE doesn't seem to exist if you focus on girl soccer. There aren't nearly as many girls playing compared to boys and the boys are much more physical and growth differences are more stark. I haven't heard RAE used as an excuse for Q4 kids in BY but RAE will be a good excuse for kids who get demoted under SY that are Q1 and Q2 and quit the sport. |
Depends on the club. Your experience is just 1 situation. I know of an instance at a club where one of the best age groups (which went to a national tournament last year) the kids were divided up based on size when going into 11v11. That's what the coach (who's a fair/strong coach, btw) told the parents, point blank, even though the year before some of the top goal scorers were smaller and more skilled. The coach said they needed the size to compete at the higher level, period, and made the case that the smaller players could shine at level 2. That 2nd team is still pretty damn good BUT is slowly falling apart as the tournaments and opportunities are just fewer. That's just the reality. I think some are holding out because of the switch to SY to get on a top team next year, but it seems pretty clear few of them, if any, will otherwise get a shot to get to the BY version of top team at this point at this club. That's RAE at work. |
It's not an excuse. Some clubs, especially these elite ones, are solely focused on winning. Some pick size as a determining factor for boys or girls. See the other recent comment. And yes, sometimes you have several strong Sept-Dec players, even at BY, but these are the outliers, skewing the perspective of these parents. The chef's kiss, though, is these clubs are ruthless and will move these players to the appropriate age level to retain their age edge. All parents should prepare. |
I see huge advantage stacked on during puberty for older kids. It’s far greater than u9.
Those are the ages I expect to see the most carnage. |
Because of my survey of 1 RAE doesn’t exist🙄 The Hawks, out of their ~120 kids on ECNL rosters, have virtually no youngers. Now what? A statistics course should be a high school requirement. They have interviewed every person that jumped out of an airplane without a parachute. 100% of them lived. Therefore it is completely safe to jump out an airplane without a chute. |
Wouldn't surprise me that the Magic teams had a few youngers. Regardless, the Hawks will recruit like crazy to get all the Sep-Dec. That's just how it is. |
They gave you a real life example and you discount it. This is exactly what a "professional rae victim" would do. |
The REAL LIFE example that was provided said what you're trying to convince everyone of isn't true. Actually they said it was 10% true but other than that it wasnt true. |
You're experience is just 1 situation. (Notice how I just copied what you wrote) 11v11 is a much different game than 9v9. The field is huge and players need to be able to kick harder/farther and run longer/faster to play at that level. I highly doubt a coach would drop down goal scorers simply for size. I do bet that parents try to make size an issue if their kid is small. I also noticed that you wrote that super amazing top team players that got dropped to the second team are now struggling and falling appart. So youre saying the coaches assessment was right. Ive seen top team players get dropped down to the second team and literally score at will. When this happened the coach that cut them and the club were begging them to play on the top team again. |
If you want to isolate BY trapped players. Just break a 12 month year into 3 groups of 4 months. 4 months is 33% of 12 months. The average youth team has 22 players. 33% of 22 is roughly 7. What this means is if everything was 100% even on average there would be 7 players born Jan-Apr, 7 players born May-Aug, and 7 players born Sept-Dec. This isnt socialist Russia or some kind of DEI. So forcing percentage quotas on teams makes no sense. My experience is top teams have between 2-5 trapped players per team. While this does show that some players benefit from being oldest. Its not as bad as the super RAE advocate is trying to make it sound. |
Based on your numbers, the best trapped players having about a 50 percent reduced chance of being on a top team is huge. And then they often get fewer minutes and lesser valued positions. Makes sense why they get pushed to other sports. |
Um I don't know where you got 50% from but yes 1/3 is less than 2/3. Take your issue up with the 12 month calendar. How do you justify the "pushed to other sports" statement? Theres always a 2nd team available to play on. Sounds to me more like parent ego won't let 2nd teams happen so they put their kid in other sports. RAE is just an excuse thats convenient. Here's another excuse for you to keep in your back pocket. Black kids tend to be bigger and stronger at younger ages. I bet if I had all the details I could show a bias for these kids. But we all know you wont use this excuse publicly. |