Who is moving a club from ECNL to GA without being kicked out of ECNL? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 |
You never know. Things change all the time. It doesn't change the real rationale behind ECNL considering an age cutoff change. It's not to help out the the "trapped" players. It's to give ECNL an advantage of older players and put up a virtual fence around ECNL clubs so they don't participate in other leagues events. |
This has blatant falsehoods, unless you plan to produce verifiable data. The main reason for biobanding resulting from relative age effect research and studies is the fact that Q4 at the academy levels is very underrepresented. If that wasn't the case, biobanding wouldn't exist. Your words can't override facts regardless of edumacated they may sound. |
This definitely sounds more like the truth, since no organization that is pay-to-play is truly putting the kids first. Its always organization and business first. |
No. Only the ones that think moving to August 1st is going to help the odds for their son getting into college through soccer |
I think it’s a good change. Thank you ECNL |
No one is switching anything. I think this was released before it was fully baked and/or someone vetoed it before it was announced. I think it is not coming. |
What are the “blatant falsehoods”? ![]() You don’t understand bionanding, AND my post had nothing to do with biobanding. There is academic research to support my post, and it’s not hard to find. |
This is peak anon posting. “Your post is blatantly false in my opinion, unless you show me proof, and in that case, I will reject your proof because I just don’t like your post, it offends my self-interest and/or preconception.” |
At the risk of stoking a completely different flame (war), ECNL doesn’t need any advantage of older or more mature player than GA. GA, with about 86% as many teams (and maybe 85-88% as many girls) as ECNL , has significantly poorer outcomes for ex-placement. I’m not sure what the advantage ECNL would gain would be when they’re already dominating D1, YNT and WNTs ranks. |
Well, all you have to do is produce the easy to find proof from reputable sources showing that biobanding and relative age effect is a figment of the imagination and has no impact on selection in youth sports. Then all those countries in Europe for example can drop their silly biobanding programs. |
Right... So ECNL gains nothing from making it so its member clubs can't play in other League tournaments and its players are 5 months older then other leagues. Keep drinking the Koolaid |
You brought up biobanding, that’s your issue, not mine. Providing you research that’s easy to find on your own isn’t my job - google is an easy tool to help you find research on relative age and talent ID (ie. team placements) - you can go on your own path of enlightenment, since it’s clear you only listen to yourself. Never said it wasn’t real. I said it’s effects are narrower over the long term, and the biggest issue of RA is people quit or don’t persevere due to their perceived (a perception or belief is a feeling, not a fact) disadvantage (and that is where you brought in biobanding…because ironically…biobanding is an attempt to solve this specific issue (keeping more players involved in a sport by giving them RA based competition vs making them feel left behind which leads to more drop outs) which you claim is “blatantly false” and you believe that I suggested was a “figment of the imagination”) |
I’m not advocating for either / or. I’m just suggesting that 5 months of maturation from ages ~11-14 for Aug-Dec girls is so marginal a gain for ECNL in a competitive landscape with GA that I doubt that is anywhere close to the rational behind why ECNL would move back to 8/1 cutoff. You are aware this exact same date swap thing has happened multiple times over the past 20 years of club soccer right? This isn’t a new phenomenon. |
Are you stating the obvious that after everyone is past puberty relative age effect is less of an impact on the youth sports landscape? Well Duh! The issue has been and continues to be the data, numbers, facts, evidence proves late bloomer Q4 and Q3 kids are often left out of selection and elite prime development environments before maturation. You do know the evidence collected is as simple as looking at birth months (most are born first two quarters) of players at elite clubs and academies which have proven beyond doubt for years late bloomers often get pushed out, left out. Anyway this is a waste discussion, because you're trying to say your 1st quarter kid didn't have an advantage which goes against all logic, evidence and facts |