MLSnext 2 and GA moves to school year cutoff from 26-27 season

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

[Anonymous]

General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

Your friend has no say in MLS Next changing from BY to SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

Your friend has no say in MLS Next changing from BY to SY

Yes, that’s true, nobody said the opposite.

He has just been informed by MLSN that by 26/27 there are serious options of MLSN moving to SY. According to that info, he is working on evaluating our rosters and younger feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

Your friend has no say in MLS Next changing from BY to SY

That is why they said they were receiving input....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

Your friend has no say in MLS Next changing from BY to SY

Yes, that’s true, nobody said the opposite.

He has just been informed by MLSN that by 26/27 there are serious options of MLSN moving to SY. According to that info, he is working on evaluating our rosters and younger feeders.

MLSN could jump ahead of the switch, no problem, the late developer program gives them plenty of flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

Talking about two different types of participation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

You keep using the word “solve.”

RAE isn’t solvable. It’s an observed phenomenon, those that benefit don’t have it “solved” because they benefit from the bias.

RAE doesn’t just show up in athletics either. Go back to the studies in the 60s that resulted in the school admissions age cutoffs changing for example.

It is an accumulation of advantage due to relative age in a cohort. Not every January kid is a beneficiary not every December kid is a casualty. The bias I athletics shows up in talent id, but that is the observed effect, not RAE itself.

People really just don’t understand this at all and think of it in a “Malcom Gladwell” misunderstood manner. Its really not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

What does that even mean? “Reaching input about serious options?”

🙄

[Anonymous]

It mean everyone will be on SY by 26/27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

You keep using the word “solve.”

RAE isn’t solvable. It’s an observed phenomenon, those that benefit don’t have it “solved” because they benefit from the bias.

RAE doesn’t just show up in athletics either. Go back to the studies in the 60s that resulted in the school admissions age cutoffs changing for example.

It is an accumulation of advantage due to relative age in a cohort. Not every January kid is a beneficiary not every December kid is a casualty. The bias I athletics shows up in talent id, but that is the observed effect, not RAE itself.

People really just don’t understand this at all and think of it in a “Malcom Gladwell” misunderstood manner. Its really not that hard.

RAE may not be completely solvable but it can certainly be reduced by things like having shorter windows for age groups like ODP's 6 months window or having soccer with different leagues using different months for age cutoffs or even having better player assessments based on birth month or flipping the age cutoff dates when the players reach say 12 years old or stop treating fake elite teams like they are the only worth players in some invented caste system, etc. Thinking RAE is unsolvable has been the problem in youth U.S. soccer for decades.

[Anonymous]

Why is MLS NEXT adding Quality of Play rankings specifically to U13 and U14?
There are just over 5,600 U13 and U14 players registered in MLS NEXT, more than 1/3 of the organization’s 16,000 players across the U.S. and Canada. They are the two most malleable age groups.

Robles referenced the book, "Outliers," in which author Malcom Gladwell tracked how American hockey players born in the first three months of the year were more likely to go pro.

They had been bigger and stronger when they were younger, and thus placed into a top-level national pipeline because they were fortunate enough to be born in January, February or March.

"If you're born in January, as opposed to someone that's born in December in the same year, it’s 10% of muscle development,” Robles said. “You're not even sure which direction that's going. We have to find ways to be able to mitigate that."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

Talking about two different types of participation

To be or not to be a soccer player. That is the question. So one in the same participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sucks to Suck summer families. My kid was born in November has been doing just fine. Get a private trainer and tell them to work hard and it will workout. That's what you told us in 2016.
Life's not fair figure it out.

My September kid was told he wasn’t “rangy” enough…. Fast forward to the new age cutoff 10 months later now he’s 5 inches taller and looks plenty “rangy”.

It’s all about the RAE.

Yeah and that’s why all the BY people are freaking out…

🫢 who is going to tell PP that age cutoffs don’t change RAE?

Age cutoffs completely change RAE impacts for each kid. If this wasn't true, nobody would care about the change.

The BIG question that we're about to see play out is how this all affects kids who have played years in BY. Chances are the older you are, the less of an impact, especially if you're already playing 11v11. But it's undeniable that strong SeptQ4 players will have opportunities this year and next as clubs look for an edge (and the opportunity MIGHT be playing up). RAE, with speed, size and coach attention, will have a greater impact the younger you go.

BY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. BY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Sorry meant to put SY
SY doesn’t change or solve RAE. It just shifts to affect a different group of players. SY does reduce the number of trapped players which is why it’s being done. RAE has nothing to do with it.

Stated another way, SY solves RAE for certain players and creates negative RAE for certain players compared to BY.

There is potential for a change beyond just sliding the window. If Sep-Dec are currently quitting, not entering, or otherwise disadvantaged in selection in the sport at a higher rate under BY than May-Aug would under SY, the birthdate distribution will be more imbalanced under BY than it would be under SY. The theory is that this is currently happening because of trapped player issues and the social mismatch across grade levels. As pointed out many, many times in this thread, playing with friends from school is likely to be a bigger motivation to play for players identified as worse (who are more likely to be Q4) than for players identified as better (who are more likely to be Q1). RAE would continue to exist to the extent it depends on the physical/emotional development advantages, which are of course heavily correlated with true age, because it's still just a 12-month window. But there is likely a component causing RAE in the current system that is *not* strictly physical development. It may be hard to pin down an exact definition of "relative age effect," but it's most commonly used as a label for the statistical bias in the group toward the birthdays sooner after the cutoff, i.e., an outcome distribution. Physical development is just one component to explain that bias, albeit the most common one, but there could very well be social or structural explanations as well.

This doesn't mean RAE is the reason for the change, and the change doesn't wholly "solve" it, but it may cause a change in RAE which many would consider "lessening" RAE.

You’re overthinking things. Participation and RAE are not connected. This is evidenced by participation drops in all sports regardless of age cutoff. Some sports like tennis, which have rolling age cutoffs with two year age bands mirror the same participation drop offs as all other sports, at the same ages.

Nice thought experiment, but the data all says otherwise.

Not sure why people have such a hard time grasping what RAE is and instead think of it as some sort of negative pressure or externality, which it isn’t, instead of an observed phenomenon.

From wiki, "The term relative age effect (RAE), also known as birthdate effect or birth date effect, is used to describe a bias, evident in the upper echelons of youth sport and academia, where participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period (and lower for those born later in the selection period) than would be expected from the distribution of births."

Dumb dumb posts a wiki and thinks he is the at least now an expert enough to justify being second author on future RAE studies.

You don’t “solve” RAE. And participation and RAE are not casually related. There are studies on this you can spend your free time perusing opposed to assuming Wikipedia makes you an expert.

PP wrote, "Participation and RAE are not connected." But then part of the definition for RAE, "participation is higher amongst those born earlier in the relevant selection period" So saying participation and RAE are not connected is inaccurate.

Changing the age cutoff absolutely solves the RAE for groups of kids and creates negative RAE for others.

Just because the aggregate doesn't change doesn't mean nothing changes. For D.C. urban moms and kids, everything changed. For coaches and teams, nothing changes if they view the kids as fungible which they tend to.

You keep using the word “solve.”

RAE isn’t solvable. It’s an observed phenomenon, those that benefit don’t have it “solved” because they benefit from the bias.

RAE doesn’t just show up in athletics either. Go back to the studies in the 60s that resulted in the school admissions age cutoffs changing for example.

It is an accumulation of advantage due to relative age in a cohort. Not every January kid is a beneficiary not every December kid is a casualty. The bias I athletics shows up in talent id, but that is the observed effect, not RAE itself.

People really just don’t understand this at all and think of it in a “Malcom Gladwell” misunderstood manner. Its really not that hard.

Luis Robles, MLSN technical director would disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:General manager of a MLSNext Academy club told me last weekend that they are receiving input about serious options of MLSN1 moving to SY by 26-27.

It would mean a complete rearrangement of rosters at the club, also from local feeder clubs U12 and younger. They are already working on it.

By MLSnext academy club do you mean a MLS P2P club or an MLS academy?