ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Dude you are annoying as hell with the RAE crap. If your kid is good, they are good. That’s it. Nothing more to it.

Good relatively to what? There's always someone better. At another club or in another league or in another state or in another country. The your kid is good or not comments are beyond pointless.

A kid is good when all the coaches and scouts and opponents recognize them as such.

The best is a different argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

How is playing with those in the same grade as you "playing down"

[Anonymous]

Are January kids currently playing down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are January kids currently playing down?

According to the insane logic on this forum, the answer would be yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

How is playing with those in the same grade as you "playing down"

Because she is born in 2010
They are born in 2011

She is U15
They are U14

How is that not playing down if she is forced to play with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are January kids currently playing down?

According to the insane logic on this forum, the answer would be yes.

Yeah, those January - March kids are such losers for playing with kids who are months and months younger than them. How disgusting. They should play up and not bring shame to their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Dude you are annoying as hell with the RAE crap. If your kid is good, they are good. That’s it. Nothing more to it.

Good relatively to what? There's always someone better. At another club or in another league or in another state or in another country. The your kid is good or not comments are beyond pointless.

A kid is good when all the coaches and scouts and opponents recognize them as such.

The best is a different argument.

If that is your "humble" attitude, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Feels like a childhood lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

[Anonymous]

You can not play DOWN! How hard is this to grasp. You play your age division- whatever the powers that be make thay age division to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

So many things to correct in here, not worth the time or effort.

I’ll just focus on RAE. US soccer has nothing to do with how children physically mature. (See genetics, nutrition, and sleep for that).

US soccer has done as solid a job of any at the national team level accounting for RAE. They made it a huge area of focus at all level when they made the change in 2015, as well as when they ran DA.

US soccer also has little to do with the nature of time as it regards to RAE and cutoff dates.

Your issue on this should start in the mirror, and maybe at the club and coach level. Parents are what drive clubs and coaches to make short term decisions. And the clubs and some coaches certainly know better than to dismiss maturation rate differences.

But look, the idea that some sorry of Soviet 5 year top down systemic plan would develop better talent or even keep more kids in sport (in this case soccer) past the age of 12 is just laughable. Kids quit sports, most of them quit just after puberty….

Why? Because it gets harder to be good when the physical playing field changes. Some unathletic kids who survived in sport before, can’t survive anymore. The sorting takes place for more serious competition on bigger fields and tons of kids just don’t want to play if they can’t win now (also a parenting problem I’d argue). This is just such as stupid argument “more kids will play if we make it less competitive” is silly. Competition is how we separate the winners from the losers - nothing more, nothing less. And some people hate losing, but not enough to motivate them to work really hard to not lose. Thats life! Do we do the same thing for non-sport competition? Dating pool? Job market? College admissions? Promotions? Etc? This whole “more kids should play and it should be less serious” is the millennial parent equivalent of the boomer parent participation trophy. Enough of the BS!

Dude you are annoying as hell with the RAE crap. If your kid is good, they are good. That’s it. Nothing more to it.

Good relatively to what? There's always someone better. At another club or in another league or in another state or in another country. The your kid is good or not comments are beyond pointless.

A kid is good when all the coaches and scouts and opponents recognize them as such.

The best is a different argument.

If that is your "humble" attitude, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Feels like a childhood lost.

What does humility have to do with it?
You challenged the designation of a good player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

Ever see an England or Argentina National Youth team with players playing down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter what the age cutoff is, NO ONE IS PLAYING DOWN. Stop with this BS that any Q4 kid that would change teams/age divisions is doing so to play down. They would simply be playing their age bracket. How hard is this concept to understand. When things changed in 2017, was every Q4 kid now PLAYING UP? No!! They were playing their age division. The only way to play down is to falsify one's age to unfairly play in a league they are not eligible to play in. Good grief.

Won't a 2010 November kid start playing down with 2011's if it goes to SY?

We need to stop the up/down talk because people can't seem to grasp that the "up" and "down" is a relative term. Once you change from BY to SY, the entire reference system changes. A Nov kid wouldn't be playing "down" after the change; he'd just be one of the older kids in his new "true" age grouping. Yes the teammates might change, but that doesn't mean he's all of a sudden playing "down". Crudely speaking, playing DOWN is gaming the system to play >12 months below your age.

According to the rest of the globe and MLS, if you're a 2010 playing with 2011's (not allowed) you are playing down

ECNL world is apparently in a bubble

NO!! Ever hear of school year soccer/football in England and Argentina? Guess all those Q4 kids playing down as well. This is insane logic.

So November 2010 kid been playing with 2010's the past 8 years

They are forced to play with 2011's in SY, how is that not playing down?