ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So which kids now have the advantage? Which months are we talking about?

Previously using calendar which birth years had the advantage?

"Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December."

So now Jan-June has a sliding scale of age advantage and July-August has a sliding scale of disadvantage.

But the theory is with SY is players can play with kids in their grade at school that it will somehow make RAE go away?

Does not compute.

The theory is not that RAE goes away completely under SY or BY. One of the theories of the switch to BY was that it would combat RAE because it would be easier to see via the simplicity of "month X is later in the year than month Y." Once noticed, coaches were assumed to be able to take it into account for team placements and development tracks. The problem is that our youth system prioritizes winning too much from an early age, so coaches just don't care about mitigating RAE. What clearly wasn't anticipated by US Soccer, but was by many others, was that RAE would also get worse under BY due to choices by players in light of new social dynamics. By compounding the disadvantage of being the youngest with trapped player issues and playing above their social tier (especially at elementary school ages), more late birthdays quit early or never transitioned to club soccer. These late birthdays, and potential late bloomers, lost a reason (social relationships) which might have motivated them to have some resiliency while their growth caught up.

Under neither system does RAE go away, but it can get worse or better. While some may have honestly thought BY would make it better, it actually got worse. And now, many now think SY is actually the system which makes RAE better.

You're just making things up. RAE doesn't change in BY or SY it's the same for both.

Even though you want SY to somehow make RAE different/better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any parent want their kid to play 2 years down based on some of these scenarios being painted?
You definitely couldn't take a club or coach seriously who wanted that.

In a league like MLS next the primary goal is to identify talent and get it onto an academy team. From there the goal is to go pro. In this situation playing down doesn't matter because the players who are participating in biobanding don't matter. They're crash test dummies for the other players that are playing up and being considered for the Academy team.

Since ECNL doesn't have the same concepts of going pro it shifts the focus on individual games. In this case playing down dramatically affects who goes onto the next level (college). This is also why it's not allowed.

Professional soccer at the highest international levels have several players who were biobanded as late developers.

One just won the Ballon d'Or

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly, this is all to eliminate the trap player, which reduced enrollment and that means less $$.

There's no proof that more players will join teams if you get rid of trapped players. Many patents have talked themselves into thinking that this is true but its not been proven.

The only thing SY is proven to do is get rid of the trapped player 8th grade issue when they're in middle school but their teammates are in High School and on the HS team.

SY groups players in the same grade at games which might make things easier for recruiters. But they're going to find top talent either way so it's negligible.

Rumor is that USA Softball moved to SY (August 31) because the college coaches said it would make their life easier on the recruiting trail.

Were softball coaches going to go on strike and stop recruiting players if they didn't change to SY? The answer is no.

Parents think that if recruiters were just able to notice my crappy player they'd get recruited. Making things easier for recruites won't make your kid any better.

Top players will get recruited even if they lived on the moon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any parent want their kid to play 2 years down based on some of these scenarios being painted?
You definitely couldn't take a club or coach seriously who wanted that.

In a league like MLS next the primary goal is to identify talent and get it onto an academy team. From there the goal is to go pro. In this situation playing down doesn't matter because the players who are participating in biobanding don't matter. They're crash test dummies for the other players that are playing up and being considered for the Academy team.

Since ECNL doesn't have the same concepts of going pro it shifts the focus on individual games. In this case playing down dramatically affects who goes onto the next level (college). This is also why it's not allowed.

Professional soccer at the highest international levels have several players who were biobanded as late developers.

One just won the Ballon d'Or

I'm sure there's outliers.

But overall their numbers would be very low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any parent want their kid to play 2 years down based on some of these scenarios being painted?
You definitely couldn't take a club or coach seriously who wanted that.

In a league like MLS next the primary goal is to identify talent and get it onto an academy team. From there the goal is to go pro. In this situation playing down doesn't matter because the players who are participating in biobanding don't matter. They're crash test dummies for the other players that are playing up and being considered for the Academy team.

Since ECNL doesn't have the same concepts of going pro it shifts the focus on individual games. In this case playing down dramatically affects who goes onto the next level (college). This is also why it's not allowed.

Professional soccer at the highest international levels have several players who were biobanded as late developers.

One just won the Ballon d'Or

I'm sure there's outliers.

But overall their numbers would be very low.

That's the point of RAE research conclusions.
Environments that don't facilitate late developers cause them to drop out of the sport. (low numbers)
Places that do produce the Harry Kane and Declan Rice and Kevin De Bruyne and Rodri etc

However, the research does show that talented late developers who make it through the highest levels systems become Pros at higher percentages than early developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any parent want their kid to play 2 years down based on some of these scenarios being painted?
You definitely couldn't take a club or coach seriously who wanted that.

In a league like MLS next the primary goal is to identify talent and get it onto an academy team. From there the goal is to go pro. In this situation playing down doesn't matter because the players who are participating in biobanding don't matter. They're crash test dummies for the other players that are playing up and being considered for the Academy team.

Since ECNL doesn't have the same concepts of going pro it shifts the focus on individual games. In this case playing down dramatically affects who goes onto the next level (college). This is also why it's not allowed.

Professional soccer at the highest international levels have several players who were biobanded as late developers.

One just won the Ballon d'Or

I'm sure there's outliers.

But overall their numbers would be very low.

That's the point of RAE research conclusions.
Environments that don't facilitate late developers cause them to drop out of the sport. (low numbers)
Places that do produce the Harry Kane and Declan Rice and Kevin De Bruyne and Rodri etc

However, the research does show that talented late developers who make it through the highest levels systems become Pros at higher percentages than early developers.

Maybe, but eventually the switch has to be flipped and biobanders change from playing down to playing up. If they want to go pro.

If a league like ECNL allowed players to play down they'd never switch to playing up because the goal isn't to play professionally it's to win games and get recruited for playing in college.

[Anonymous]

I heard on another board that there is discussion of a Jan-June & July-Dec cutoff and U11 wouldn’t start until U15. This would basically extend the 7v7 and 9v9 format which in turns provides more touches for players. This is what a lot of other countries do and I find it interesting but can’t see it being feasible in our country, it would be a huge change and a lot of clubs unfortunately focus too much on winning at the younger age.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, not “U11” wouldn’t start until U15, but 11v11 wouldn’t start until U15

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would any parent want their kid to play 2 years down based on some of these scenarios being painted?
You definitely couldn't take a club or coach seriously who wanted that.

In a league like MLS next the primary goal is to identify talent and get it onto an academy team. From there the goal is to go pro. In this situation playing down doesn't matter because the players who are participating in biobanding don't matter. They're crash test dummies for the other players that are playing up and being considered for the Academy team.

Since ECNL doesn't have the same concepts of going pro it shifts the focus on individual games. In this case playing down dramatically affects who goes onto the next level (college). This is also why it's not allowed.

Professional soccer at the highest international levels have several players who were biobanded as late developers.

One just won the Ballon d'Or

I'm sure there's outliers.

But overall their numbers would be very low.

That's the point of RAE research conclusions.
Environments that don't facilitate late developers cause them to drop out of the sport. (low numbers)
Places that do produce the Harry Kane and Declan Rice and Kevin De Bruyne and Rodri etc

However, the research does show that talented late developers who make it through the highest levels systems become Pros at higher percentages than early developers.

Maybe, but eventually the switch has to be flipped and biobanders change from playing down to playing up. If they want to go pro.

If a league like ECNL allowed players to play down they'd never switch to playing up because the goal isn't to play professionally it's to win games and get recruited for playing in college.

The switch is flipped when the player doesn't meet the standard of being physically behind his age group peers.

Shouldn't be many post-puberty 16, 17, 18 year old biobanded kids around

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard on another board that there is discussion of a Jan-June & July-Dec cutoff and U11 wouldn’t start until U15. This would basically extend the 7v7 and 9v9 format which in turns provides more touches for players. This is what a lot of other countries do and I find it interesting but can’t see it being feasible in our country, it would be a huge change and a lot of clubs unfortunately focus too much on winning at the younger age.

I could see it happening.

It's cheaper to rent fields for 9v9 than it is for 11v11 and you can fit more 9v9 fields in a smaller space.

[Anonymous]

Why do people keep talking about kids playing "down" nobody is going to play down. It puts the teams in more of what they are currently in school.

Most teams right now (take 2010) ... 60/70 percent of the team are Freshman. 40/30 percent of the team is in 8th grade. This team is considered u15 or called 2010 (depending on the league)

If they make the change ... 95+ of the teams will be in the same grade. Nobody will be playing "down" - or less than a few percentages.

The players that are August/Sept birthdays or frankly anyone from August-July could go and try and play up with the older group, but nobody can just go "play down".

I truly don't understand why everyone keeps talking about kids playing down - especially in club soccer. They change will put 95%+ of all kids from the same grade on the same team.

Currently it is not close to that.

Most important - from my few - is it eliminates trapped 8th graders that don't get a club team when their teams are in 9th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not “U11” wouldn’t start until U15, but 11v11 wouldn’t start until U15

Good God, that will be a boomball nightmare. Everyone trying to score from across halfway line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep talking about kids playing "down" nobody is going to play down. It puts the teams in more of what they are currently in school.

Most teams right now (take 2010) ... 60/70 percent of the team are Freshman. 40/30 percent of the team is in 8th grade. This team is considered u15 or called 2010 (depending on the league)

If they make the change ... 95+ of the teams will be in the same grade. Nobody will be playing "down" - or less than a few percentages.

The players that are August/Sept birthdays or frankly anyone from August-July could go and try and play up with the older group, but nobody can just go "play down".

I truly don't understand why everyone keeps talking about kids playing down - especially in club soccer. They change will put 95%+ of all kids from the same grade on the same team.

Currently it is not close to that.

Most important - from my few - is it eliminates trapped 8th graders that don't get a club team when their teams are in 9th grade.

Current rules are BY

If things change to SY trapped players can play down an age group.

Pretty easy to understand by everyone but you because you're trying to use semantics because you're so stuck on SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not “U11” wouldn’t start until U15, but 11v11 wouldn’t start until U15

Good God, that will be a boomball nightmare. Everyone trying to score from across halfway line.

I was at a game where a 11v11 team played on a smaller field.

The goalie scored 2x booting it from their own box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not “U11” wouldn’t start until U15, but 11v11 wouldn’t start until U15

Good God, that will be a boomball nightmare. Everyone trying to score from across halfway line.

Agreed. They would probably have to change the size of the goal to make it more like outdoor futsal.