ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

There isn't going to be any maintaining of two separate groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

This is true but everyone is going 8/1 so that ship has sailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

There isn't going to be any maintaining of two separate groups.

Oh good we have someone that knows what MLS plans to do.

Please tell us more and don't skip on the details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.


Not bending RAE at all, you are the one confused. RAE is a cumulative effect, so if the whole landscape goes SY, then benefits of RAE are lost for top teams, not that there are not exceptions, but on the aggregate the data agree RAE is cumulative and therefore your average player loses the benefit from playing against bigger stronger faster competition with better coaching from u8-u12. now if BY u8-u12 leagues existed then in theory this could offset that with the overall player pool getting potential RAE specific benefits. However, that is not the case. Moreover, having your top tier team (MLSN academy) a different cutoff than the P2Ps doesn't really benefit anyone. If anything it makes talent ID more biased towards age which we need less of, especially in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

This is true but everyone is going 8/1 so that ship has sailed.

I know it's true because I wrote it and I understand RAE even though I dont believe it it for top teams..

I'm ust going to celebrate the small wins. Finally one of the blockheads admits a post was wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

Not bending RAE at all, you are the one confused. RAE is a cumulative effect, so if the whole landscape goes SY, then benefits of RAE are lost for top teams, not that there are not exceptions, but on the aggregate the data agree RAE is cumulative and therefore your average player loses the benefit from playing against bigger stronger faster competition with better coaching from u8-u12. now if BY u8-u12 leagues existed then in theory this could offset that with the overall player pool getting potential RAE specific benefits. However, that is not the case. Moreover, having your top tier team (MLSN academy) a different cutoff than the P2Ps doesn't really benefit anyone. If anything it makes talent ID more biased towards age which we need less of, especially in the US.
I hope people are reading your responses. Because if they are they'll quickly realize how wrong you are.

In this response you're actually arguing both for and against RAE in the same post. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

I hope people are reading your responses. Because if they are they'll quickly realize how wrong you are.

In this response you're actually arguing both for and against RAE in the same post. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

Not bending RAE at all, you are the one confused. RAE is a cumulative effect, so if the whole landscape goes SY, then benefits of RAE are lost for top teams, not that there are not exceptions, but on the aggregate the data agree RAE is cumulative and therefore your average player loses the benefit from playing against bigger stronger faster competition with better coaching from u8-u12. now if BY u8-u12 leagues existed then in theory this could offset that with the overall player pool getting potential RAE specific benefits. However, that is not the case. Moreover, having your top tier team (MLSN academy) a different cutoff than the P2Ps doesn't really benefit anyone. If anything it makes talent ID more biased towards age which we need less of, especially in the US.

I hope people are reading your responses. Because if they are they'll quickly realize how wrong you are.

In this response you're actually arguing both for and against RAE in the same post. It makes no sense.

Wait a minute. So, with this argument you're also saying ALL the USYNTs -- which for international reasons have to stay BY -- doesn't benefit anyone? That's perhaps why top youth club, like MLSN academies, maybe should stay BY. Besides, they should be good enough to play up, right?

[Anonymous]

Could someone just explain to me who exactly the parents are who are upset about this, and why? I don't get it.

Every sport has year long cutoffs. Whether is December or August, why the drama? Your kid plays where he falls within the given range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree, but what else is there to talk about now? It’s all over but the crying for the BY crazies. Nothing left to discuss really.

We can debate when MLSN will officially announce. My own guess is they will drop it during a holiday weekend or something like that. Maybe thanksgiving or Christmas.

Still some question about this spring and any rules being bent to prepare (seems unlikely). Also, when and what are clubs doing in general to prepare now that it is certainly imminent.

MLSN top level academies stay BY but play up vs. the rest who go SY. ... MLSN will make the BY-ers work harder to win.

I was thinking this as well but there has been some recent talk around about the academies also just going SY.

The benefits (if any) of BY are outweighed by the confusion (for coaches, players, parents and tourney directors) of having two age cutoffs in the same league. Also, does not make sense for MLSN to lose out on the cumulative effect of RAE from the u8-u12 pool of players across the entire US, come u13.

This doesnt make sense stop bending RAE to fit into you're posts. You dont understand how it works.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

If there were 2 groupings with different start dates (1/1 and 8/1). RAE would be beneficial to January AND August birthdays. Since these dates are roughly 6 months appart and both groupings are 365 days . Maintaining 2 seperate groupings this way would actually be better for RAE.. Once players get older and RAE isnt an issue top players would be more distributed to the entire year because of the 2 groupings and start dates.

Not bending RAE at all, you are the one confused. RAE is a cumulative effect, so if the whole landscape goes SY, then benefits of RAE are lost for top teams, not that there are not exceptions, but on the aggregate the data agree RAE is cumulative and therefore your average player loses the benefit from playing against bigger stronger faster competition with better coaching from u8-u12. now if BY u8-u12 leagues existed then in theory this could offset that with the overall player pool getting potential RAE specific benefits. However, that is not the case. Moreover, having your top tier team (MLSN academy) a different cutoff than the P2Ps doesn't really benefit anyone. If anything it makes talent ID more biased towards age which we need less of, especially in the US.

I hope people are reading your responses. Because if they are they'll quickly realize how wrong you are.

In this response you're actually arguing both for and against RAE in the same post. It makes no sense.

Wait a minute. So, with this argument you're also saying ALL the USYNTs -- which for international reasons have to stay BY -- doesn't benefit anyone? That's perhaps why top youth club, like MLSN academies, maybe should stay BY. Besides, they should be good enough to play up, right?
What is all this nonsense? Now you're trying to bring USYNT into the discussion?

Seriously get help. You don't understand RAE and you appear to have some issue with MLSN and USM/WNTs .

[Anonymous]

What is all this nonsense? Now you're trying to bring USYNT into the discussion?

Seriously get help. You don't understand RAE and you appear to have some issue with MLSN and USM/WNTs .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone just explain to me who exactly the parents are who are upset about this, and why? I don't get it.

Every sport has year long cutoffs. Whether is December or August, why the drama? Your kid plays where he falls within the given range.

Instead of explaining it to you Ill ask you a question.

If your kid was born in Aug but in 8th grade would you want them to play on an 8th grade or 7th grade team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone just explain to me who exactly the parents are who are upset about this, and why? I don't get it.

Every sport has year long cutoffs. Whether is December or August, why the drama? Your kid plays where he falls within the given range.

Instead of explaining it to you Ill ask you a question.

If your kid was born in Aug but in 8th grade would you want them to play on an 8th grade or 7th grade team?

I would say since when does "grade" matter in soccer? My kid's current team is half 9th grade, half 8th grade. Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could someone just explain to me who exactly the parents are who are upset about this, and why? I don't get it.

Every sport has year long cutoffs. Whether is December or August, why the drama? Your kid plays where he falls within the given range.

Instead of explaining it to you Ill ask you a question.

If your kid was born in Aug but in 8th grade would you want them to play on an 8th grade or 7th grade team?

Not the poster you're responding to, but the answer is simple. They play during the 12 month window they are in. It's not complicated. It's been said ad nauseam but you still don't get it. Just because there is a change, doesn't change the fact club soccer is run by 12 month intervals. There is now a new 12 month interval. The same amount of kids who "could" play up will play up but it will have nothing to do with grade.

[Anonymous]

But kids are always allowed to play "up", so the hypothetical August birthday in 8th grade could always choose to try out for the older team.