ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

is this correct for ECNL ?
current:
2007/2006 team: has 12th grade/11th grade born 1/1 2006 - 12/31/2007
2008 team:has 11th grade/10th grade born 1/1-12/31/2008

change would be to:
12th grade team
11th grade team
10th grade team
approximately based on school year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Please reread the original comment then reread yours so you can see your misinterpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is this correct for ECNL ?
current:
2007/2006 team: has 12th grade/11th grade born 1/1 2006 - 12/31/2007
2008 team:has 11th grade/10th grade born 1/1-12/31/2008

change would be to:
12th grade team
11th grade team
10th grade team
approximately based on school year

Based on my understanding, yes. When would they announce the change? Next month or so?

[Anonymous]

What is the date for the US Club meeting in October? What in the date for the US Soccer meeting in November?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the date for the US Club meeting in October? What in the date for the US Soccer meeting in November?

US SOCCER - Nov 15

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

Does the player pool change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

Does the player pool change?

Your question is unrelated to their comment.

[Anonymous]

When does US Club have their meeting this month? Does anyone know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

Does the player pool change?

Yes! You no longer have trapped players so you now have a larger total player pool on teams. How is this hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

https://static.ussdcc.com/users/148963/897090_eng-october2017pdi.pdf

Have fun 👍

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

Does the player pool change?

Yes! You no longer have trapped players so you now have a larger total player pool on teams. How is this hard to understand.

No, it doesn’t change. That’s the point! Trapped players are not some external pool of players that would be in the pool if not for their unfortunate birthday. The trapped players in the pool are already in. The trapped players that are out of the pool are already out. The birthday doesn’t move those out to in.

Coaches build teams based on the best players available, roster spots and positions. That means in the existing pool, the same kids are on the same teams.

Long term you shift the RAE window for ECNL. But it will make zero difference at the NT level….the research data shows that, possibly diminishing ECNL’s pipeline to NT camps and ID sessions, which long term will hurt its main product: producing college athletes. Everyone poopoos the YNT aspect because it’s inconvenient to the argument for SY, but that is a huge piece of the ECNL marketing to colleges and pipeline building of clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://static.ussdcc.com/users/148963/897090_eng-october2017pdi.pdf

Have fun 👍

So…surprise to surprise….BY allows better benchmarking 😱 for youth development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

Umm, incorrect. Teams would lose their youngest kids and gain older kids. So yes they would be on average bigger/stronger/faster with the change. So would the competition, so it's an irrelevant from a competition standpoint.

Does the player pool change?

Yes! You no longer have trapped players so you now have a larger total player pool on teams. How is this hard to understand.

No, it doesn’t change. That’s the point! Trapped players are not some external pool of players that would be in the pool if not for their unfortunate birthday. The trapped players in the pool are already in. The trapped players that are out of the pool are already out. The birthday doesn’t move those out to in.

Coaches build teams based on the best players available, roster spots and positions. That means in the existing pool, the same kids are on the same teams.

Long term you shift the RAE window for ECNL. But it will make zero difference at the NT level….the research data shows that, possibly diminishing ECNL’s pipeline to NT camps and ID sessions, which long term will hurt its main product: producing college athletes. Everyone poopoos the YNT aspect because it’s inconvenient to the argument for SY, but that is a huge piece of the ECNL marketing to colleges and pipeline building of clubs.

You are going on unrelated tangents. Trying to seem like the smartest person has the opposite effect.