ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

Soccer isn't tied to school unless its a school team

RAE is about physical late developers regardless of month born. Stats just show the majority are 4th Quarter

If your National Association and top league and all other league are BY (which doesn't change graduation year date) why be a fringe league going with SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Does birth year, school year even matter to the players at this level? I'm always told these players are playing 2 or 3 years up anyway and never play with kids their age because they're so much better.

It matters at the younger age groups trying to keep the participation up. Almost no one is playing 2 or 3 years up at the ECNL level and as stated earlier, it's more to help the trapped players/recruiting vs. RAE.

How does it help trapped players with recruiting?
Are their ages and graduation dates currently unknown to the recruiters?

It just helps for better evaluation player to player per grade. I don’t think there should be any issues. Will only make teams and competition stronger by adding 2009 trapped players with 2010 Q1/2 kids.

The top league that sends the most boys to college teams use BY with many players playing up.
College recruiters have zero problems.

They aren't weeding through hundreds of unknown to them random candidates.

MLS next also has bio banding which is basically SY for specific kids. Just not full SY for everyone. But they use the option. Not straight BY.

Agreed, with MLS Next Late Development rule for 3 kids, an MLS Next team could essentially function under the school year cutoff for the whole team so really, the other leagues would just be copying MLS Next for school year like teams.

Going to school year cutoff would be more copying than revolutionary.

While the there will be winners and losers in switching, this almost assuredly will go through through because clubs think they can make more money on higher participation based on kids being more likely to play with school year friends at younger ages, not having to provide programming for trapped kids and possibly having another older team (instead of the current 2 age groups joining). Follow the money.

Funny how the big leagues are expanding down to U11 now. Again, follow the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

Maybe someone should tell you England has RAE issues and they are September 1st cutoff
Harry Kane was a summer baby who had lots of late bloomer adversities.
4th Quarter is 4th Quarter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

Maybe someone should tell you England has RAE issues and they are September 1st cutoff
Harry Kane was a summer baby who had lots of late bloomer adversities.
4th Quarter is 4th Quarter

You will always have RAE issues but SY will keep more kids involved in soccer. That's just what experts say. Also more kids = more money for soccer clubs and leagues. England offer bio banding for summer kids. So you don't even know what you're talking about.

Also just because a handful of people can overcome doesn't mean the majority can. Especially countries who do things very different for kids development.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks BY is a good idea is just trying to hold on to power they don't really believe its best for kids.

The mix up would only make games better. Take the best Q3/4 11s with the top Q1/2 12s and the competition is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

Maybe someone should tell you England has RAE issues and they are September 1st cutoff
Harry Kane was a summer baby who had lots of late bloomer adversities.
4th Quarter is 4th Quarter

I am not completely sure what you are trying to say here and while not a fan of case study economics vs using actual data, thankfully for England and Harry Kane, the sport options other than soccer in England are more limited than the U.S. of course. Harry says, "When I was released aged nine, I was one of the smallest on the team and because I had a late birthday, I was almost a year behind a lot of the players physically. But then I became a totally different player when I had a growth spurt at 14 and was then one of the tallest on the team. So things can change really quickly. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

Maybe someone should tell you England has RAE issues and they are September 1st cutoff
Harry Kane was a summer baby who had lots of late bloomer adversities.
4th Quarter is 4th Quarter

An example of a Q4 birthday sticking it out, in a school year system, to achieve at the highest level is a datapoint against or in-favor-of school year? According to his academy coach who kept him at a critical moment in his development, Kane was the beneficiary of an awareness campaign on RAE at the time in English soccer. They gave him the benefit of the doubt because of his birthday when he was at risk of getting cut. His story would be used to advocate for a school year aligned cutoff combined with an awareness campaign. His story is also used to support the idea that our national teams need to do what they can to keep late-bloomers in the system at youth levels.

Regardless, England does have RAE issues, and the US had RAE issues before the switch. RAE can be made better or worse, not eliminated solely by either cutoff choice. Don't let "the perfect be the enemy of the good."

[Anonymous]

The issue is how to keep late developers from leaving the sport because they aren’t getting selected into teams where their talents in a bigger body would get them selected.

The issue isn't how to eliminate late bloomers from having challenges.

As stated, this is about how good late developers with potential are impacted. Not every player who is younger or smaller.
If you're not good enough skills/IQ wise, your size isn't the issue.

So you want to force my November 2011 kid to play with August 2012's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks BY is a good idea is just trying to hold on to power they don't really believe its best for kids.

The mix up would only make games better. Take the best Q3/4 11s with the top Q1/2 12s and the competition is better.

Isn't the Q2 12s now the 4th Quarter late bloomers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who have boys in MLS Next, how much international play do those teams actually do? What benefit does that league particularly get by being aligned with international play?

I feel like for every domestic youth league (leaving out national teams for the moment) except MLS Next, school year cutoff is the clear winner. For MLS Next, I could see why they would resist if they play a lot of international matches or are sending players to Europe as pros when they turn 18.

Winner at what? What's the real measurable benefit?

Measurable benefits favoring school year alignment: higher overall participation rates, higher overall retention rates, improved relative age effect profile, decreased club operations workload (after year 1), decreased college recruiter workload, decreased time off training for the trapped subset and/or decreased cost for private training during that time, decreased team disruption at U18-19.

Have there been any measurable benefits from the switch to calendar year with increased international alignment? I'm willing to entertain even the most remotely plausible theory of a measurable benefit. No one seems willing to attempt to articulate one. It would seem that if there were some measurable benefit, the easiest place to identify it would be MLS Next.

Saying measurable benefits and proving measurable benefits are two different things.
You're doing a lot of 'sounds nice' not based on facts and reality.

There's a lack of participation issue because of BY?
Won't there still be kids who are the youngest if you move from Jan1 to September 1? (August becomes the new December)

If you reject the circumstantial nature of the participation, retention, and RAE studies over the last 8 years, fine. The trends are indeed "facts and reality," but the cause cannot be said to be birth year cutoffs with certainty. In the face of those though, you'd think someone would be floating some alternative explanations.

Hypothetically, if I'm a US Soccer decision-maker about to go into a meeting on this issue, what are my arguments in favor of birth year? Scouring this thread, I only can find (1) saying 2010 is simpler than saying 2028, (2) that birth year is the status quo, and (3) a blanket denial of proposed benefits to school year. International alignment for the sake of itself, without a proposed benefit, is unlikely to convince those in favor of the change. Is there anything more convincing I should take into that meeting?

So you solution to RAE is shift the late developers from Dec, Nov, Oct to June, July, August?

RAE has gotten worse since the change. Q4 is less represented in youth club soccer than it was prior to the change. RAE profiles as kids age up are no longer being evened out as they age. Participation and retention rates are also down since the change, with Q4 accounting for an outsized portion of that decrease. Hypothesis presented is that this is a result of the change to birth year. Is there an alternative explanation? The reasoning for the hypothesis is that introducing the social and operational challenges of being across grade level are causing the permanent departure of Q4 kids from organized soccer. They are no longer sticking with it while waiting for their physical maturity to catch up. If there is no alternative explanation, are there countervailing benefits that should be weighed against this?

RAE is not getting better/worse since the change. It exists and will exist regardless of where you draw the cutoff. If Aug 1 becomes the cutoff, then RAE will impact may/June/July birthdays and they will become underrepresented because they are 10-12 months behind others in the age group developmentally.

You can make an argument about retention rates and using birth year, but RAE in itself doesn't change depending on where you draw the line - someone will always be the oldest in a 12 month window and someone will have to be the youngest.