Trapped/Re-aging Families, How are you having the conversation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting lost on what the argument is?

Is one side saying there is no way to play college if not playing on grade? Or is that argument that you can get recruited but exposure will be significantly limited?

And is the other side saying there is absolutely no negative impact to playing with the lower grade? Or is that argument that you can do that when young and then adjust later?

We'll be changing from BY to SY this fall. In SY 8/1-7/31 because different school districts start at different times there is a potential for the youngest in the grade (August September birthdays) to play on a club team thats a grade down from them I. school. As an example they would be the only 6th grade player on a team of 5th grade players.

This causes issues when players are looking to get recruited and play in college because 90% of recruiting occurs in players Sophmore year (official offers occur Junior year). If you're and Aug birthday Sophmore playing on a team with freshman you will get ignored / immediately discounted by college recruiters. To address the issue Aug/Sept birthdays just need to play up on a team with players their grade in school.

Theres several other issues playing down a grade creates. But college recruitment is the big one.

If the Aug or Sept birthday player isn’t good enough to play up with their grade year, then he isn’t good enough to get recruited with his grade year. Not that hard to understand!

Clubs mostly said no playing up, college coaches said they don't need you to play up. Case by case. No hard and fast rules. No judgement.

I agree with this, however, would a player playing on age end up being at a disadvantage when they end up having to mix with their grade at showcases or when they play on grade/year their freshman year in college? Is there any literature/research that addresses this point?

The relative age effect literature shows the advantages of being the oldest in an age group when young and it decreasing as the kids get older but overall having a cumulative effect so in theory if you switch age groups after the bulk of puberty it wouldn't matter because at that point there isn't as much difference between the age groups as when the kids are really young. But every kid is different and you know yours best, best of luck with yours.

This makes sense in terms of comparing physical abilities between players. I do wonder about the influence of the level of competition of a player playing with a lower grade and have to then start mixing with higher grades during their later years. Although one can argue a player playing with a lower grade could get more touches on the ball which would also have a positive impact on their development.

Hopefully kids can play on teams at some point where they are dominate to gain confidence, and other times where they are average to below average to humble them into working to get better, regardless of grade. Switching teams and trying out are skills to be learned regardless of playing on age or up.

Nope, you're not going to steal some other kids opportunity by playing down.

Of course you can't play down but it is an interesting point. Technically everybody is taking someone else's spot whatever age group they play. But there would have to be a point where because that one kid is playing, the club can put together another team. So sometimes one kid playing lets 9 or so other kids play that wouldn't have been able to. Keep playing to save those 9 or so kids.

Not to be a jerk because it seems like you're just starting to figure this stuff out.

But, there literally are parents and club owners that want Aug/Sept players to play down. It makes the parents with lower level players feel like winners and club owners make more money from an extra year of club.

When you call it out they get crazy just like you see here. They hate when parents take control and say enough of the nonsense.

Teams on their FAQ were very clear that you can't play down, and that they are trying to get the clubs to SY by playing everyone on age. And the whole point of RAE, the older part of the age group feels like winners, gets motivated and doubles down on playing soccer. Sports teams are always musical chairs.

There is no point in rae. No matter how you slice the bread there will always be winners and losers.

The problem with rae is it gives the losers something to grab onto and potentially use to leverage hurt feelings onto an A team roster spot.

If the clubs evaluated players more on skill and less on size and speed for wins, RAE wouldn't be an issue. RAE is caused by coaches gunning for wins. RAE is huge.

Rae is a figment of loser parents imagination. Its the perfect excuse that can be used for anthing.

Do you have any research indicating that RAE is a myth and the academics that have spent their lives studying it are wrong and you are right?

Yes I do

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

I really like this chart because shows that if you want you boy to play soccer professionally, you want them to be born in the oldest months of the age group when they were kids, Aug for SY and Jan for BY and you don't want them to be the youngest, Jun/July for SY and Dec for BY.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting lost on what the argument is?

Is one side saying there is no way to play college if not playing on grade? Or is that argument that you can get recruited but exposure will be significantly limited?

And is the other side saying there is absolutely no negative impact to playing with the lower grade? Or is that argument that you can do that when young and then adjust later?

We'll be changing from BY to SY this fall. In SY 8/1-7/31 because different school districts start at different times there is a potential for the youngest in the grade (August September birthdays) to play on a club team thats a grade down from them I. school. As an example they would be the only 6th grade player on a team of 5th grade players.

This causes issues when players are looking to get recruited and play in college because 90% of recruiting occurs in players Sophmore year (official offers occur Junior year). If you're and Aug birthday Sophmore playing on a team with freshman you will get ignored / immediately discounted by college recruiters. To address the issue Aug/Sept birthdays just need to play up on a team with players their grade in school.

Theres several other issues playing down a grade creates. But college recruitment is the big one.

If the Aug or Sept birthday player isn’t good enough to play up with their grade year, then he isn’t good enough to get recruited with his grade year. Not that hard to understand!

Clubs mostly said no playing up, college coaches said they don't need you to play up. Case by case. No hard and fast rules. No judgement.

I agree with this, however, would a player playing on age end up being at a disadvantage when they end up having to mix with their grade at showcases or when they play on grade/year their freshman year in college? Is there any literature/research that addresses this point?

The relative age effect literature shows the advantages of being the oldest in an age group when young and it decreasing as the kids get older but overall having a cumulative effect so in theory if you switch age groups after the bulk of puberty it wouldn't matter because at that point there isn't as much difference between the age groups as when the kids are really young. But every kid is different and you know yours best, best of luck with yours.

This makes sense in terms of comparing physical abilities between players. I do wonder about the influence of the level of competition of a player playing with a lower grade and have to then start mixing with higher grades during their later years. Although one can argue a player playing with a lower grade could get more touches on the ball which would also have a positive impact on their development.

Hopefully kids can play on teams at some point where they are dominate to gain confidence, and other times where they are average to below average to humble them into working to get better, regardless of grade. Switching teams and trying out are skills to be learned regardless of playing on age or up.

Nope, you're not going to steal some other kids opportunity by playing down.

Of course you can't play down but it is an interesting point. Technically everybody is taking someone else's spot whatever age group they play. But there would have to be a point where because that one kid is playing, the club can put together another team. So sometimes one kid playing lets 9 or so other kids play that wouldn't have been able to. Keep playing to save those 9 or so kids.

Not to be a jerk because it seems like you're just starting to figure this stuff out.

But, there literally are parents and club owners that want Aug/Sept players to play down. It makes the parents with lower level players feel like winners and club owners make more money from an extra year of club.

When you call it out they get crazy just like you see here. They hate when parents take control and say enough of the nonsense.

Teams on their FAQ were very clear that you can't play down, and that they are trying to get the clubs to SY by playing everyone on age. And the whole point of RAE, the older part of the age group feels like winners, gets motivated and doubles down on playing soccer. Sports teams are always musical chairs.

There is no point in rae. No matter how you slice the bread there will always be winners and losers.

The problem with rae is it gives the losers something to grab onto and potentially use to leverage hurt feelings onto an A team roster spot.

If the clubs evaluated players more on skill and less on size and speed for wins, RAE wouldn't be an issue. RAE is caused by coaches gunning for wins. RAE is huge.

Rae is a figment of loser parents imagination. Its the perfect excuse that can be used for anthing.

Do you have any research indicating that RAE is a myth and the academics that have spent their lives studying it are wrong and you are right?

Yes I do

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

I really like this chart because shows that if you want you boy to play soccer professionally, you want them to be born in the oldest months of the age group when they were kids, Aug for SY and Jan for BY and you don't want them to be the youngest, Jun/July for SY and Dec for BY.

Thank you.

Reread the article what you are interrupting is not was it says. But I think you already know this.

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting lost on what the argument is?

Is one side saying there is no way to play college if not playing on grade? Or is that argument that you can get recruited but exposure will be significantly limited?

And is the other side saying there is absolutely no negative impact to playing with the lower grade? Or is that argument that you can do that when young and then adjust later?

We'll be changing from BY to SY this fall. In SY 8/1-7/31 because different school districts start at different times there is a potential for the youngest in the grade (August September birthdays) to play on a club team thats a grade down from them I. school. As an example they would be the only 6th grade player on a team of 5th grade players.

This causes issues when players are looking to get recruited and play in college because 90% of recruiting occurs in players Sophmore year (official offers occur Junior year). If you're and Aug birthday Sophmore playing on a team with freshman you will get ignored / immediately discounted by college recruiters. To address the issue Aug/Sept birthdays just need to play up on a team with players their grade in school.

Theres several other issues playing down a grade creates. But college recruitment is the big one.

If the Aug or Sept birthday player isn’t good enough to play up with their grade year, then he isn’t good enough to get recruited with his grade year. Not that hard to understand!

Clubs mostly said no playing up, college coaches said they don't need you to play up. Case by case. No hard and fast rules. No judgement.

I agree with this, however, would a player playing on age end up being at a disadvantage when they end up having to mix with their grade at showcases or when they play on grade/year their freshman year in college? Is there any literature/research that addresses this point?

The relative age effect literature shows the advantages of being the oldest in an age group when young and it decreasing as the kids get older but overall having a cumulative effect so in theory if you switch age groups after the bulk of puberty it wouldn't matter because at that point there isn't as much difference between the age groups as when the kids are really young. But every kid is different and you know yours best, best of luck with yours.

This makes sense in terms of comparing physical abilities between players. I do wonder about the influence of the level of competition of a player playing with a lower grade and have to then start mixing with higher grades during their later years. Although one can argue a player playing with a lower grade could get more touches on the ball which would also have a positive impact on their development.

Hopefully kids can play on teams at some point where they are dominate to gain confidence, and other times where they are average to below average to humble them into working to get better, regardless of grade. Switching teams and trying out are skills to be learned regardless of playing on age or up.

Nope, you're not going to steal some other kids opportunity by playing down.

Of course you can't play down but it is an interesting point. Technically everybody is taking someone else's spot whatever age group they play. But there would have to be a point where because that one kid is playing, the club can put together another team. So sometimes one kid playing lets 9 or so other kids play that wouldn't have been able to. Keep playing to save those 9 or so kids.

Not to be a jerk because it seems like you're just starting to figure this stuff out.

But, there literally are parents and club owners that want Aug/Sept players to play down. It makes the parents with lower level players feel like winners and club owners make more money from an extra year of club.

When you call it out they get crazy just like you see here. They hate when parents take control and say enough of the nonsense.

Teams on their FAQ were very clear that you can't play down, and that they are trying to get the clubs to SY by playing everyone on age. And the whole point of RAE, the older part of the age group feels like winners, gets motivated and doubles down on playing soccer. Sports teams are always musical chairs.

There is no point in rae. No matter how you slice the bread there will always be winners and losers.

The problem with rae is it gives the losers something to grab onto and potentially use to leverage hurt feelings onto an A team roster spot.

If the clubs evaluated players more on skill and less on size and speed for wins, RAE wouldn't be an issue. RAE is caused by coaches gunning for wins. RAE is huge.

Rae is a figment of loser parents imagination. Its the perfect excuse that can be used for anthing.

Do you have any research indicating that RAE is a myth and the academics that have spent their lives studying it are wrong and you are right?

Yes I do

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

I really like this chart because shows that if you want you boy to play soccer professionally, you want them to be born in the oldest months of the age group when they were kids, Aug for SY and Jan for BY and you don't want them to be the youngest, Jun/July for SY and Dec for BY.

Thank you.

Reread the article what you are interrupting is not was it says. But I think you already know this.

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

What the self published article says is largely irrelevant. It's a chart not results from a multivariate equation with goodness of fit test parameters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

If only the rae people would spend time with their kids practicing and getting better instead of ranting online about how its everyone else's fault but their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

Most scientists appreciate questions and a shared desire to seek knowledge regardless of result. You create a hypothesis and test it and then see if others can repeat it. That's the peer review process and science in general.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting lost on what the argument is?

Is one side saying there is no way to play college if not playing on grade? Or is that argument that you can get recruited but exposure will be significantly limited?

And is the other side saying there is absolutely no negative impact to playing with the lower grade? Or is that argument that you can do that when young and then adjust later?

We'll be changing from BY to SY this fall. In SY 8/1-7/31 because different school districts start at different times there is a potential for the youngest in the grade (August September birthdays) to play on a club team thats a grade down from them I. school. As an example they would be the only 6th grade player on a team of 5th grade players.

This causes issues when players are looking to get recruited and play in college because 90% of recruiting occurs in players Sophmore year (official offers occur Junior year). If you're and Aug birthday Sophmore playing on a team with freshman you will get ignored / immediately discounted by college recruiters. To address the issue Aug/Sept birthdays just need to play up on a team with players their grade in school.

Theres several other issues playing down a grade creates. But college recruitment is the big one.

If the Aug or Sept birthday player isn’t good enough to play up with their grade year, then he isn’t good enough to get recruited with his grade year. Not that hard to understand!

Clubs mostly said no playing up, college coaches said they don't need you to play up. Case by case. No hard and fast rules. No judgement.

I agree with this, however, would a player playing on age end up being at a disadvantage when they end up having to mix with their grade at showcases or when they play on grade/year their freshman year in college? Is there any literature/research that addresses this point?

The relative age effect literature shows the advantages of being the oldest in an age group when young and it decreasing as the kids get older but overall having a cumulative effect so in theory if you switch age groups after the bulk of puberty it wouldn't matter because at that point there isn't as much difference between the age groups as when the kids are really young. But every kid is different and you know yours best, best of luck with yours.

This makes sense in terms of comparing physical abilities between players. I do wonder about the influence of the level of competition of a player playing with a lower grade and have to then start mixing with higher grades during their later years. Although one can argue a player playing with a lower grade could get more touches on the ball which would also have a positive impact on their development.

Hopefully kids can play on teams at some point where they are dominate to gain confidence, and other times where they are average to below average to humble them into working to get better, regardless of grade. Switching teams and trying out are skills to be learned regardless of playing on age or up.

Nope, you're not going to steal some other kids opportunity by playing down.

Of course you can't play down but it is an interesting point. Technically everybody is taking someone else's spot whatever age group they play. But there would have to be a point where because that one kid is playing, the club can put together another team. So sometimes one kid playing lets 9 or so other kids play that wouldn't have been able to. Keep playing to save those 9 or so kids.

Not to be a jerk because it seems like you're just starting to figure this stuff out.

But, there literally are parents and club owners that want Aug/Sept players to play down. It makes the parents with lower level players feel like winners and club owners make more money from an extra year of club.

When you call it out they get crazy just like you see here. They hate when parents take control and say enough of the nonsense.

Teams on their FAQ were very clear that you can't play down, and that they are trying to get the clubs to SY by playing everyone on age. And the whole point of RAE, the older part of the age group feels like winners, gets motivated and doubles down on playing soccer. Sports teams are always musical chairs.

There is no point in rae. No matter how you slice the bread there will always be winners and losers.

The problem with rae is it gives the losers something to grab onto and potentially use to leverage hurt feelings onto an A team roster spot.

If the clubs evaluated players more on skill and less on size and speed for wins, RAE wouldn't be an issue. RAE is caused by coaches gunning for wins. RAE is huge.

Rae is a figment of loser parents imagination. Its the perfect excuse that can be used for anthing.

Do you have any research indicating that RAE is a myth and the academics that have spent their lives studying it are wrong and you are right?

Yes I do

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

I really like this chart because shows that if you want you boy to play soccer professionally, you want them to be born in the oldest months of the age group when they were kids, Aug for SY and Jan for BY and you don't want them to be the youngest, Jun/July for SY and Dec for BY.

Thank you.

Reread the article what you are interrupting is not was it says. But I think you already know this.

https://medium.com/@giacorada/the-fascinating-birth-trend-among-professional-soccer-players-b2a48d015e7d

What the self published article says is largely irrelevant. It's a chart not results from a multivariate equation with goodness of fit test parameters.

Ahhh... Everything you dont like or agree with is irrelevant. Got it 👍

I dont know why people think you're crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

If only the rae people would spend time with their kids practicing and getting better instead of ranting online about how its everyone else's fault but their own.

Seems like you're doing the rage posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

Getting peer reviewed and writing peer reviews does feel like pitchfork throwing. Painful on both sides but a necessary step to adding to the body of knowledge as they are want to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

If only the rae people would spend time with their kids practicing and getting better instead of ranting online about how its everyone else's fault but their own.

Seems like you're doing the rage posting.

No rage posting is where you respond to 10-20 posts from over 5 hours ago frantically trying to spin an naritive.

like what you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

If only the rae people would spend time with their kids practicing and getting better instead of ranting online about how its everyone else's fault but their own.

The RAE talk isn't a fraction of the whining to go school year grades and how the sky will fall if it doesn't happen, and pleading for someone to actually side with Aug poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha maybe you should read the papers so its not so easy to make you look stupid.

"So, while the US also uses the calendar year to determine age groups for youth players, the inevitably smaller pool of children willing/able to pay for youth soccer may cause the more balanced distribution we have witnessed above"

the above sentence is why the paper needed to be peer reviewed, because it suggests the author was unaware of the age registration change.

Im surprised you didnt slip rae into that excuse somehow.

It's a fascinating set of data but more needs to be done to understand why the numbers are they way they are. The author provides a theory BUT at best he doesn't address the SY/BY switch. That's a potential flaw in his reasoning and he should have at least discussed it, especially if aware, like he did with other possible reasons for the numbers.

In his defense, he is a data scientist, his goal is to use a few charts to show lines going up and down to show what is happening. He isn't pupporting to understand why something is happening, he is merely speculating which he freely admits. Causation isn't in his occupation.

More than fair. We're lucky he looked at it and it showed some interesting trends that confirmed a lot of other studies but raised new questions. and in a way, we're crowdsourcing some review, although I'm not sure I could say I'm a peer.

I'm sure the dude who find incredibly fascinating that a group of randos is parsing his chart like it is the map to a treasure chest.

The author looked at something through the lense of data only. Unfortunately doing so stepped on the religion of rae. Which means the "its everyone' else's fault gamg" will be out with pitchforks.

If only the rae people would spend time with their kids practicing and getting better instead of ranting online about how its everyone else's fault but their own.

Seems like you're doing the rage posting.

No rage posting is where you respond to 10-20 posts from over 5 hours ago frantically trying to spin an naritive.

like what you do.

You're the one complaining about people discussing RAE in a condenscending manner. I think this is No. 4.