ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t make sense because of redshirting. Which is why they moved to birth year in the first place.

There was no redshirting problem with the old system, which used a 12-month window starting at 8/1. Here is a quick summary of their reasoning for the change to birth year:
https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/five-things-to-know-about-birth-year-registration

Ignoring the obvious corporate-speak nonsense, like claiming a benefit from "U.S. youth players will now develop and train in the same age group environment as leading soccer nations worldwide," despite those players never actually training or playing against players from those nations, or that the change "ensures that players are training and playing in the proper age group" despite just shifting the window, the two actual reasons stated were that it would "strive to lessen RAE" and it would "make it easier to understand what age group a youth player belongs in." Because of the added difficulties faced by the new Q4 players, RAE has actually gotten worse. So we're left with just the reason that US Soccer thought parents were too stupid to figure out their age group if they had to look at the month in addition to the year of birth.

The only youth league I'm aware of that sees any international play is MLS Next, and even there it's very rare if you look beyond Canada.

If you're worried about redshirting under a class year system, check out how lacrosse handles it (a sport that is syphoning players away from soccer at an increasing rate). They allow organizations to either use the 12-month window most aligned with school classes, or use a 15-month window to flex summer birthdays to stay with their school class:
https://www.usalacrosse.com/age-eligibility-guidelines
Seems pretty simple to me.

ECNL said they are exploring the change "with other youth organizations," so they are at least trying to not change it alone. US Soccer sent out surveys to clubs, through state youth organizations, so they are certainly involved in the conversation to change it back. US Soccer has (at least) two big concerns that could be affected: (1) participation/retention rates in domestic youth soccer, i.e. "growing the game," and (2) the strength of our national teams. Given the exodus of new Q4 players since the change, and overall decrease in participation/retention rates, concern (1) likely favors switching back. This could, however, also be affected by (2) indirectly, as the success of our senior national teams leads to more participation.

As for (2), a change shouldn't directly affect our senior teams which aren't limited by any age cutoffs. Our youth national teams could be weaker, and that could indirectly affect our senior teams. For youth national teams, scouting could be slightly tougher as all the Jan-June kids are effectively "playing up" in club. The ODP program would probably see a resurgence to counter this, as it was the chance to see kids play in the same age cohort as international play. The bigger potential problem, just for youth national teams, is that because of RAE club soccer will always be overinvesting in Q1 kids, while the youth national teams are favoring the new Q2 kids. This is better for balancing opportunities, but could be worse if US Soccer wants to shower the same small group with all the opportunities throughout their youth career. Yes, the Q4 kids under a birth year cutoff are crapped on way worse than the Q4 kids under a school year cutoff. But US Soccer is going to have to decide whether it's worth it to have slightly stronger youth national teams.

[Anonymous]

That was a mouth full ^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

I was with you until the end there lol “years of hard training every other kid does to not be “trapped” those kids are born 1/1 to 7/1 to not be trapped they don’t put in any extra work to not be a trapped player? That’s not how it works ya fool.

Also I would argue the 8/1 to 12/31 kids who are on ECNL teams probably have to work even harder than the others to make up for their lack of size and physical development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

I was with you until the end there lol “years of hard training every other kid does to not be “trapped” those kids are born 1/1 to 7/1 to not be trapped they don’t put in any extra work to not be a trapped player? That’s not how it works ya fool.

Also I would argue the 8/1 to 12/31 kids who are on ECNL teams probably have to work even harder than the others to make up for their lack of size and physical development.

There are plenty of kids that fall in the 9/1 to 12/31 birthdates that aren’t “trapped.” They played up a year, found their school early, etc. They didn’t just ride a team expecting magic to happen in 12th grade. As one of my daughter’s trainers says, “if you haven’t gotten calls by 11th grade, it’s too late.” (Obviously depending on expectations…some people just want to play with their friends vs have soccer goals beyond 18).

If you know about how the top European academies retooled in the mid to late 1980s to create the last 15-20 years of this professional soccer golden era - you’d see that what the top American academies are doing today is going to bear amazing fruit. The top academes structures players into 3 main buckets:
1) kids that belong here, and should train in their birth year - may or may not play professionally.
2) kids that should train up a year or two, and will likely play professionally, will be great team talent.
3) kids that should progress as quickly as possible through the ranks to the B team, with a likely pro-debut around 16-17.

Keep in mind, many of these kids were joining the academies at 14, so that means going pro in 2 years!

Trapped kids are not a factor or RAE, they are a factor a bad parent management, and bad training dedication. If the kid isn’t playing up, they’re not going far. If the kid isn’t working harder that 98% of the other kids, they’re not going far. Being “trapped” is just a way to excuse the kid and family with circumstances outside of their control for outcomes that have a not insignificant amount of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

Why are there so few trapped players? Think about that. Why is 75% of top team January to May kids? Is that best for the development of all players? Just asking?…

England does SY and many Scandinavian and Euro countries do bio banding and hybrid models until U16 before going to only BY. Sweden for example who’s 10% the US size just beat the our team in World Cup.

If there is no downside 1/1-9/1 then don’t worry about it. Just wait and see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

I think you just proved the whole point of changing back to SY? The current system is failing too large of a group of kids. We want more kids playing not just one group as the majority.

Also I’m pretty sure countries in Europe with strong school systems play SY and offer bio banding to younger players in BY which helps development as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

Part of the problem to solve is exactly that - there aren't as many trapped kids as there statistically should be. Why? Because they are quitting at a much higher rate than Q4 kids used to. That is evident in the RAE drop-off having gotten worse. Arguing that we shouldn't do anything to help trapped players because there aren't many left in the system completely misses the evidence of a problem.

England is generally considered a powerhouse nation and does school year cutoffs with a Fall/Summer cutoff. Almost all the other powerhouse nations also do school year cutoffs - it's just that their school cutoff happens to be 1/1. If anything, our current system is the outlier due to misalignment.

[Anonymous]

Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

I was with you until the end there lol “years of hard training every other kid does to not be “trapped” those kids are born 1/1 to 7/1 to not be trapped they don’t put in any extra work to not be a trapped player? That’s not how it works ya fool.

Also I would argue the 8/1 to 12/31 kids who are on ECNL teams probably have to work even harder than the others to make up for their lack of size and physical development.

There are plenty of kids that fall in the 9/1 to 12/31 birthdates that aren’t “trapped.” They played up a year, found their school early, etc. They didn’t just ride a team expecting magic to happen in 12th grade. As one of my daughter’s trainers says, “if you haven’t gotten calls by 11th grade, it’s too late.” (Obviously depending on expectations…some people just want to play with their friends vs have soccer goals beyond 18).

If you know about how the top European academies retooled in the mid to late 1980s to create the last 15-20 years of this professional soccer golden era - you’d see that what the top American academies are doing today is going to bear amazing fruit. The top academes structures players into 3 main buckets:
1) kids that belong here, and should train in their birth year - may or may not play professionally.
2) kids that should train up a year or two, and will likely play professionally, will be great team talent.
3) kids that should progress as quickly as possible through the ranks to the B team, with a likely pro-debut around 16-17.

Keep in mind, many of these kids were joining the academies at 14, so that means going pro in 2 years!

Trapped kids are not a factor or RAE, they are a factor a bad parent management, and bad training dedication. If the kid isn’t playing up, they’re not going far. If the kid isn’t working harder that 98% of the other kids, they’re not going far. Being “trapped” is just a way to excuse the kid and family with circumstances outside of their control for outcomes that have a not insignificant amount of control.

Interesting that there's still an overrepresentation of older birthdays on every countries' national teams. As you're saying it, at the most elite level, RAE shouldn't exist because the kids are so talented and hard-working. Even if we say "screw everyone else, we only care about the most elite players in this country," some potential elite players with late birthdays are leaving the system early, or somehow not being developed to their full potential. Every extra bit of adversity we pile on that group increases the chance that they leave the system, get overlooked, or clubs underinvest in them.

Also, European academies, especially on the boys' side, have a big incentive to properly identify *future* talent because they can sell it later. The US system prioritizes winning from a very early age, which worsens RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

They likely start getting more opportunities on better teams, more attention from their coaches, and become more confident, but they may now be the ones who over-rely on size and speed while the Summer birthdays have no choice but to work harder on their technical skills. Some Sep-Dec kids will work harder because they now think "soccer is my thing, and I'm great at it," but many of them will get lazy and over-confident that they're always going to be better than other players even after everyone is fully-grown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

Don’t forget about the August kids!

Interesting that your point of view is the reason Aug to December kids are underrepresented is because of their lack of work ethic? If that’s the case you should embrace all those kids joining the group. With The lack of effort they give shouldn’t be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

They already are the ones training harder? Any of those kids on an ECNL team have to work extremely hard to compete against kids who are usually great athletes in the grade above them.