ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The UK had to wrestle with the exact same issue in the early 2000s, Germany as well. Both changed the power structure in order to take Clubs out of the driver seat for national federations and start at the national level first, then the clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A valid argument against changing the cutoff. Well said.

[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.

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.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

[Anonymous]

I am curious as to what the other big ECNL clubs do for trapped players their high school 8th grade season? For our club, (large top 50 girls club nationally) they form a team of other trapped players from the “A/B/C/D” teams. Obviously this is not ideal as the level of competition is not great. For some reason we dont follow the 2 players playing down rule.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the pro-BY people in this thread are the sharpest knives in the drawer. As the podcast said, honestly, the remaining serious argument is simply between those who think SY is worth the mess of the change and those who don't. Serious people, with engaged brains and not blinded by some personal interest, overwhelmingly agree that SY is better for the long term health of the sport and that BY did not turn out to provide any of the promised benefits. But not only would the change cause some headaches in the shuffle, some older kids might quit in year one. So there may be an initial decline in participation among travel players before the intake benefits make up for it. Imagine being a bottom half of the team player with a Jan-Mar birthday who gets pushed down. This could be the change that pushes you to quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the pro-BY people in this thread are the sharpest knives in the drawer. As the podcast said, honestly, the remaining serious argument is simply between those who think SY is worth the mess of the change and those who don't. Serious people, with engaged brains and not blinded by some personal interest, overwhelmingly agree that SY is better for the long term health of the sport and that BY did not turn out to provide any of the promised benefits. But not only would the change cause some headaches in the shuffle, some older kids might quit in year one. So there may be an initial decline in participation among travel players before the intake benefits make up for it. Imagine being a bottom half of the team player with a Jan-Mar birthday who gets pushed down. This could be the change that pushes you to quit.

Oh come on now your embarrassing yourself with all the mental gymnastics youre going through to try and validate SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A valid argument against changing the cutoff. Well said.

Also a valid argument for parents to stop crying when they change the cutoffs. Because in the end it doesn’t even matter… (insert Linkin park)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the pro-BY people in this thread are the sharpest knives in the drawer. As the podcast said, honestly, the remaining serious argument is simply between those who think SY is worth the mess of the change and those who don't. Serious people, with engaged brains and not blinded by some personal interest, overwhelmingly agree that SY is better for the long term health of the sport and that BY did not turn out to provide any of the promised benefits. But not only would the change cause some headaches in the shuffle, some older kids might quit in year one. So there may be an initial decline in participation among travel players before the intake benefits make up for it. Imagine being a bottom half of the team player with a Jan-Mar birthday who gets pushed down. This could be the change that pushes you to quit.

Oh come on now your embarrassing yourself with all the mental gymnastics youre going through to try and validate SY.

School year is the way! And when the change is announced it will be glorious.

Unless they don’t change then I’ll come here and you can make fun of me for being stupid enough to believe things I heard on a podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

When the US has true Academys and clear pro pathways instead of college being the feeder there “may” be an argument here. But we don't so the ReSt oF ThE wOrLd argument is just dumb.

England drives on the left side of the road and they have been a country longer than we have so lets align with them and change our entire infrastructure because they must be smarter than us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

If we had a bunch of subsidized soccer academies or leagues I would say it’s not as big of a deal. But when parents have to pay big money why would clubs want to lose kids born Aug to Dec if they believe a change will add more kids which means more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

When the US has true Academys and clear pro pathways instead of college being the feeder there “may” be an argument here. But we don't so the ReSt oF ThE wOrLd argument is just dumb.

England drives on the left side of the road and they have been a country longer than we have so lets align with them and change our entire infrastructure because they must be smarter than us.

Alignment is the magic sauce. We should stop debating this and move on to deciding whether it would be better to conduct practices in Spanish or Portuguese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

When the US has true Academys and clear pro pathways instead of college being the feeder there “may” be an argument here. But we don't so the ReSt oF ThE wOrLd argument is just dumb.

England drives on the left side of the road and they have been a country longer than we have so lets align with them and change our entire infrastructure because they must be smarter than us.

Best argument yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

A good thought is not always a good idea. People come up with stupid ideas all the time and are used car sale people who make them sound like it will work and then it doesn’t.

The only argument for BY is it’s easy to understand and many other countries do it. I don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to keep it? Can’t we just let the soccer people decide what’s best.

Unless they don’t agree with me then they are dumb.

Haven't soccer people around the world already decided that BY is best?

Sheesh this guy must have a kid with a Sept Birthday.

When the US has true Academys and clear pro pathways instead of college being the feeder there “may” be an argument here. But we don't so the ReSt oF ThE wOrLd argument is just dumb.

England drives on the left side of the road and they have been a country longer than we have so lets align with them and change our entire infrastructure because they must be smarter than us.

Alignment is the magic sauce. We should stop debating this and move on to deciding whether it would be better to conduct practices in Spanish or Portuguese.

You do know they have bio banding for the girls in other countries? If they add some type of late development clause I think that would help the issues we see.
Also let the trapped players play tournaments or something during the high school seasons. ECNL showcases are limited I’m talking all leagues should do something.