ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

[Anonymous]

SY aligns with ECNL's core customers very well, and ECNL is an exclusive league itself. It can just change to SY itself without too much impact on other leagues if else stick to BY. I will be very surprised if there is no change next year. My kid is currently playing MLS to avoid the 8th grade gap, but it is good to have more options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It allows us to get away from "bigger, stronger, faster," account for RAE, and get the focus off winning. I wonder if any of those things were accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It allows us to get away from "bigger, stronger, faster," account for RAE, and get the focus off winning. I wonder if any of those things were accomplished.

They absolutely have. Hence the bellyaching from trapped parents to try to negotiate a structural change that they believe, wrongly imo, will make up for the lack of their child’s talent development in previous years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

And yet, this is what US Soccer was hoping would happen. Coaches were supposed to look at birth month, which would now be easier to notice, and account for RAE in team selections and playing time. By shining a light on the problem, they were hoping someone else would fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

I would agree the genetics definitely plays a part in this but RAE definitely isn’t a BS argument otherwise why break up this kids at all? Why have U13/14 and such.

The fact is kids who are younger more often then not are less developed physically and mentally and are unable to comprehend certain concepts based on their mental capacity.

Which again is why we have grades in school, yes some kids are geniuses and can skip grades or subjects but for the majority they need to be around other kids within the same realm. Which is why they have AP classes.

I’m not arguing for a change to school year but RAE is in more places than just athletics and is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

What is it you want? A soccer handicap? “My October kid should get the ball back if they lose it to a March born opponent.” “My kid should be on the top team despite not being good enough to compete against that teams opponents because of my kid’s December birthday.”

There are, on every team, a Q4 kid that deserves to be there despite the age gap. And there is a January kid that is short for their age that had to work their tail off to make the team. This isn’t some sort of calendar date magic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

I would agree the genetics definitely plays a part in this but RAE definitely isn’t a BS argument otherwise why break up this kids at all? Why have U13/14 and such.

The fact is kids who are younger more often then not are less developed physically and mentally and are unable to comprehend certain concepts based on their mental capacity.

Which again is why we have grades in school, yes some kids are geniuses and can skip grades or subjects but for the majority they need to be around other kids within the same realm. Which is why they have AP classes.

I’m not arguing for a change to school year but RAE is in more places than just athletics and is real.

Right, and that (mental maturation) doesn’t change regardless of age cutoffs.

Nor does stuff like peripheral vision, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

People are idiots if they really thought a coach was going to look at big January kid and a smaller December kid and think well they are even as far as skill maybe this December kid will grow and I can develop them down the line.

The reality is coaches look for the players most likely to help them win now. Not saying they don’t develop but if skill and speed are close to even coaches love the bigger kids. So it definitely is a big disadvantage to some and a big advantage to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

People are idiots if they really thought a coach was going to look at big January kid and a smaller December kid and think well they are even as far as skill maybe this December kid will grow and I can develop them down the line.

The reality is coaches look for the players most likely to help them win now. Not saying they don’t develop but if skill and speed are close to even coaches love the bigger kids. So it definitely is a big disadvantage to some and a big advantage to others.

So then the question becomes are all of USSF's PDIs to be followed by leagues/teams or are they a menu and guide to follow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

What is it you want? A soccer handicap? “My October kid should get the ball back if they lose it to a March born opponent.” “My kid should be on the top team despite not being good enough to compete against that teams opponents because of my kid’s December birthday.”

There are, on every team, a Q4 kid that deserves to be there despite the age gap. And there is a January kid that is short for their age that had to work their tail off to make the team. This isn’t some sort of calendar date magic.

If there’s no calendar date magic why are people freaking out about possible calendar changes? If birth months really don’t matter nothing will change? Aug to Dec kids wouldn’t make top teams for school age if they are NOT good enough.