MLS Next Announcement

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

You are a theoretical intellectual who wants to pontificate. I am a “brute” realist who simply lives life. You are smarter than me. Bestow your wisdom upon us please. What do you advise my Q4 child to do to overcome RAE?

It was said many times

Focus on improving all the skillsets that don't require superior physicality

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

You are clueless if you think science is a Dear Abby column.

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

Are you angrily and aggressively asking for help or an argument?

Grade is 100% irrelevant
So is age

Focus on being disciplined and consistent in developing individual technical skills and improving IQ while maximizing what you can do physically with what nature plus hard work is giving you.

Focus on the process, not the results

It's simple, slow and repetitive slow growth with ups and downs

No magic pills

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

When you ask that question to an anonymous forum, you point out that you as the parent are a major impediment.

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

When you ask that question to an anonymous forum, you point out that you as the parent are a major impediment.

😂😂

[Anonymous]

I predict MLSN HG will go SY within 2-3 years. Year 1 and maybe 2 will be able to continue the pipeline of BY players, with little turnover, and feel like they are doing fine. But they'll quickly start receiving complaints and concerns around the U13 transition. The "best" players from SY U12 will be nervous about going to tryout for MLSN HG U14. Many of the players who could make HG U13 teams won't realize that they could make the team bc they aren't their team's best player. While the very best players with pro-ambitions may still find their way to HG, the bottom half of teams will be weaker, which will be apparent in any inter-age scrimmages where the younger teams appear to be falling off from their pre-2026 levels. They will start looking at their birth month profiles, see an even larger fall off of Aug-Dec birthdays than pre-2026, and determine (like English academies) that this level of RAE is a huge potential financial cost to their pro league. At that point, they will finally start an honest conversation around what development benefit they get from BY, decide that they are hurting the MLS pipeline solely for the purpose of helping USYNT finishes, and end it. They run a serious risk of ECNL gaining popularity among the best players while they get dragged into SY over those few years.

Just my prediction. It will be interesting to see if MLS/MLSN/clubs are really saying "this is fine" in 2028.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict MLSN HG will go SY within 2-3 years. Year 1 and maybe 2 will be able to continue the pipeline of BY players, with little turnover, and feel like they are doing fine. But they'll quickly start receiving complaints and concerns around the U13 transition. The "best" players from SY U12 will be nervous about going to tryout for MLSN HG U14. Many of the players who could make HG U13 teams won't realize that they could make the team bc they aren't their team's best player. While the very best players with pro-ambitions may still find their way to HG, the bottom half of teams will be weaker, which will be apparent in any inter-age scrimmages where the younger teams appear to be falling off from their pre-2026 levels. They will start looking at their birth month profiles, see an even larger fall off of Aug-Dec birthdays than pre-2026, and determine (like English academies) that this level of RAE is a huge potential financial cost to their pro league. At that point, they will finally start an honest conversation around what development benefit they get from BY, decide that they are hurting the MLS pipeline solely for the purpose of helping USYNT finishes, and end it. They run a serious risk of ECNL gaining popularity among the best players while they get dragged into SY over those few years.

Just my prediction. It will be interesting to see if MLS/MLSN/clubs are really saying "this is fine" in 2028.

My prediction is as long as MLSN is associated with MLS it wont matter if they stay BY. On top of everything else MLSN has biobanding and multiple other rules they could implement to make BY and SY sync/mesh.

I get what you're trying to say even if I dont agree. But, you're not taking into account all the changes that can be implemented to make things work. You're assuming MLSN2 SY will function like ECNL which isnt a good bet.

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

Are you angrily and aggressively asking for help or an argument?

Grade is 100% irrelevant
So is age

Focus on being disciplined and consistent in developing individual technical skills and improving IQ while maximizing what you can do physically with what nature plus hard work is giving you.

Focus on the process, not the results

It's simple, slow and repetitive slow growth with ups and downs

No magic pills

So, I tell you you are right and ask you for advise since you are so knowledgeable and you ask me if I am angry?

The remaining advice is correct and exactly how my Q4 kid has surpassed most of the kids in his age group after starting soccer well after. The rest of the parents stressing about BY vs SY will appreciate the advice but I got the development part homie 😉.

When I said I don’t give a s—— about RAE, I am a “brute.”

I will repeat, I have a Q4, don’t give a s—— about RAE, SY or BY. The rest of your message above is one I can support. Spread the word to other parents instead of trying to win a RAE argument to satisfy your ego.

You can even take credit that this development model is your exclusive idea 😉. I think the young kids would call you a self-glazer.

PS. This is why smart, analytical people like you work for people like me. It is not how smart you are. How can you access knowledge and use it? Thank you for your service!

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

When you ask that question to an anonymous forum, you point out that you as the parent are a major impediment.

Spoken like one of the angry parents on the sidelines when my kid guests for their team. Questions enable me to access your knowledge for free without you knowing any of mine 😉

Questions cornered a pompous poster and left him butt naked and forgetting why he was arguing. You seem to be too slow to get it 🤣

I hope Trump does not have you operating heavy machinery 😂

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

Are you angrily and aggressively asking for help or an argument?

Grade is 100% irrelevant
So is age

Focus on being disciplined and consistent in developing individual technical skills and improving IQ while maximizing what you can do physically with what nature plus hard work is giving you.

Focus on the process, not the results

It's simple, slow and repetitive slow growth with ups and downs

No magic pills

So, I tell you you are right and ask you for advise since you are so knowledgeable and you ask me if I am angry?

The remaining advice is correct and exactly how my Q4 kid has surpassed most of the kids in his age group after starting soccer well after. The rest of the parents stressing about BY vs SY will appreciate the advice but I got the development part homie 😉.

When I said I don’t give a s—— about RAE, I am a “brute.”

I will repeat, I have a Q4, don’t give a s—— about RAE, SY or BY. The rest of your message above is one I can support. Spread the word to other parents instead of trying to win a RAE argument to satisfy your ego.

You can even take credit that this development model is your exclusive idea 😉. I think the young kids would call you a self-glazer.

PS. This is why smart, analytical people like you work for people like me. It is not how smart you are. How can you access knowledge and use it? Thank you for your service!

So you were angry and asking for an argument. Ok.

[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:

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 think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Here it is. Exactly. You don't agree with it? Explain why you don't agree with it in the face of the overwhelming majority of research showing that it exists.

It exists. I just don’t give it credence in my life as it amounts to an excuse. If I succumb to it, should me and my child accept less results based on a birthday? Throw away all plans and aspirations to the fact my child will not succeed in MLS Next because he is a Q4?

Are you aware every advantage has an equal and opposite disadvantage?

Yes, a popular 2013 kid is born in April and boasts about “playing up”. Great marketing and he will be in DCUA. He is closer to some of those 2012’s than my December kid is to his own age group. Nobody really cares.

Your kids screen time, video game usage have way more of an impact than RAE these days.

I acknowledge RAS exists but really don’t give a s—-

Your entire crusade against RAE, that you admit is real, is a personal beef you have about a specific 2013 April kid that's outperforming your December kid?

At least you confessed your irrational comments come from an emotional place

You dont even realize that multiple people are telling you that rae is BS and a super excuse.

Yes Sir
I will ignore all the academic and scientific studies data
I will instead listen to the uneducated opinions of a few amateurs on an anonymous blog

There are NO rae studies that include B teams and specifically the multi-year affects of B to A team players.

Every RAE study shows the effect of the late developers who didn't quit that learned to enhance skills not requiring a big size and how they often end up top players after they have caught up in physical maturation

The examples of famous B team players are well known like Harry Kane, Declan Rice, Kevin De Bruyne and many others

One again, this is too intellectual for the Neanderthal mind

As an adult if you don't understand the terms increased probability and decreased probability, it is too late for you to understand research. I'm sorry your education didn't take. Unfortunately it's too late for you just like it is too late for antivaxers.

You're either responding to the wrong comment or you're off the rails

Congratulations, you win! The comment was only meant for those that thought the comment didn't apply to the Pp.

Then you're saying someone doesn't understand research in response to them posting conclusions of the research?

Or you're saying the research conclusions are wrong that the late developers who focus on technical skills and IQ don't become desired players after they catch-up physically?

I think you just win. No matter what research you believe in, you are smarter than us and have more data points to provide superior guidance to your child.

What do you advise your child? We will hang up and listen intently?

You're defensive and lashing out because the PP posted the RAE conclusions that proved the poster wrong who said B team players aren't part of RAE studies?

I have no clue about any RAE studies. I just know this you win the RAE argument.

Now, what do you advise your child now that you information is validated as correct?

I can jump in here to say, one advice doesn't fit all

Except copy the development parts of the best players that fit your individual style and personality

Okay. In copying the development parts of the best players that fit my individual style and personality, are there any factors I should consider such as my child’s current age or current grade?

When you ask that question to an anonymous forum, you point out that you as the parent are a major impediment.

Spoken like one of the angry parents on the sidelines when my kid guests for their team. Questions enable me to access your knowledge for free without you knowing any of mine 😉

Questions cornered a pompous poster and left him butt naked and forgetting why he was arguing. You seem to be too slow to get it 🤣

I hope Trump does not have you operating heavy machinery 😂

Great, you are the impediment. Your welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict MLSN HG will go SY within 2-3 years. Year 1 and maybe 2 will be able to continue the pipeline of BY players, with little turnover, and feel like they are doing fine. But they'll quickly start receiving complaints and concerns around the U13 transition. The "best" players from SY U12 will be nervous about going to tryout for MLSN HG U14. Many of the players who could make HG U13 teams won't realize that they could make the team bc they aren't their team's best player. While the very best players with pro-ambitions may still find their way to HG, the bottom half of teams will be weaker, which will be apparent in any inter-age scrimmages where the younger teams appear to be falling off from their pre-2026 levels. They will start looking at their birth month profiles, see an even larger fall off of Aug-Dec birthdays than pre-2026, and determine (like English academies) that this level of RAE is a huge potential financial cost to their pro league. At that point, they will finally start an honest conversation around what development benefit they get from BY, decide that they are hurting the MLS pipeline solely for the purpose of helping USYNT finishes, and end it. They run a serious risk of ECNL gaining popularity among the best players while they get dragged into SY over those few years.

Just my prediction. It will be interesting to see if MLS/MLSN/clubs are really saying "this is fine" in 2028.

My prediction is as long as MLSN is associated with MLS it wont matter if they stay BY. On top of everything else MLSN has biobanding and multiple other rules they could implement to make BY and SY sync/mesh.

I get what you're trying to say even if I dont agree. But, you're not taking into account all the changes that can be implemented to make things work. You're assuming MLSN2 SY will function like ECNL which isnt a good bet.

The "3-D chess" theory is that MLS (pro) really doesn't care if ECNL gains on MLSN1. MLSN1 might lose depth, and become more niche for future pros, but if ECNL SY becomes a better alternative league for Aug-Dec kids to develop, MLS gets two development pools with different cutoffs. ECNL becomes an unwitting partner for MLS development. MLSN1 may appear weaker at U13/14/15 than it was, but by U16/17/19 the future pro players will move to MLSN1. So it's possible that MLSN1 appears weaker (in early ages and overall depth) and ECNL "wins" in that it gains ground, but as a pro-development pool, the overall youth system better benefits MLS. This assumes that prioritizing development of two different birth month pools is better than trying to consolidate all the talent in one pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict MLSN HG will go SY within 2-3 years. Year 1 and maybe 2 will be able to continue the pipeline of BY players, with little turnover, and feel like they are doing fine. But they'll quickly start receiving complaints and concerns around the U13 transition. The "best" players from SY U12 will be nervous about going to tryout for MLSN HG U14. Many of the players who could make HG U13 teams won't realize that they could make the team bc they aren't their team's best player. While the very best players with pro-ambitions may still find their way to HG, the bottom half of teams will be weaker, which will be apparent in any inter-age scrimmages where the younger teams appear to be falling off from their pre-2026 levels. They will start looking at their birth month profiles, see an even larger fall off of Aug-Dec birthdays than pre-2026, and determine (like English academies) that this level of RAE is a huge potential financial cost to their pro league. At that point, they will finally start an honest conversation around what development benefit they get from BY, decide that they are hurting the MLS pipeline solely for the purpose of helping USYNT finishes, and end it. They run a serious risk of ECNL gaining popularity among the best players while they get dragged into SY over those few years.

Just my prediction. It will be interesting to see if MLS/MLSN/clubs are really saying "this is fine" in 2028.

My prediction is as long as MLSN is associated with MLS it wont matter if they stay BY. On top of everything else MLSN has biobanding and multiple other rules they could implement to make BY and SY sync/mesh.

I get what you're trying to say even if I dont agree. But, you're not taking into account all the changes that can be implemented to make things work. You're assuming MLSN2 SY will function like ECNL which isnt a good bet.

The "3-D chess" theory is that MLS (pro) really doesn't care if ECNL gains on MLSN1. MLSN1 might lose depth, and become more niche for future pros, but if ECNL SY becomes a better alternative league for Aug-Dec kids to develop, MLS gets two development pools with different cutoffs. ECNL becomes an unwitting partner for MLS development. MLSN1 may appear weaker at U13/14/15 than it was, but by U16/17/19 the future pro players will move to MLSN1. So it's possible that MLSN1 appears weaker (in early ages and overall depth) and ECNL "wins" in that it gains ground, but as a pro-development pool, the overall youth system better benefits MLS. This assumes that prioritizing development of two different birth month pools is better than trying to consolidate all the talent in one pool.

TLDR

Way too complicated