Trapped/Re-aging Families, How are you having the conversation?

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

2nd team players get labelled 2nd players via coach lock and the fact that clubs want to increase revenue by bringing in players to the first team rather than promoting within. Second team players are younger than first team players in an age cohort, again by RAE definition. Being on the first team is crucial to maximizing one's youth soccer outcome.

So now you're bringing out a new terms. Apparently "coach lock" is a component of RAE in your head and club "revenue" is also a component of RAE.

This is why people stop listening when you mention RAE.You use it as a super excuse and mix it with other things to get your way which most likely is your kid playing on an A team even when their ability doesnt justify it.

Not PP but this is testable. If you are right, post-puberty top teams (say U16+) will have a natural distribution by age overall. If RAE poster is right, it will still be skewed towards the younger end of the age cohort. I think the data shows the latter. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Its not testable because you'd have to track B team to A team players over multiple years and across different clubs/leagues.

No you don’t. You just need to look at the age distribution on teams of a certain level (say, ECNL or ECNL + GA) and look at the age distribution across all teams. You don’t need to track movement at all. You just need to look at the final distribution. That’s how statistics work.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

2nd team players get labelled 2nd players via coach lock and the fact that clubs want to increase revenue by bringing in players to the first team rather than promoting within. Second team players are younger than first team players in an age cohort, again by RAE definition. Being on the first team is crucial to maximizing one's youth soccer outcome.

So now you're bringing out a new terms. Apparently "coach lock" is a component of RAE in your head and club "revenue" is also a component of RAE.

This is why people stop listening when you mention RAE.You use it as a super excuse and mix it with other things to get your way which most likely is your kid playing on an A team even when their ability doesnt justify it.

Hand waving away RAE because B teams exist is a fallacy.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

2nd team players get labelled 2nd players via coach lock and the fact that clubs want to increase revenue by bringing in players to the first team rather than promoting within. Second team players are younger than first team players in an age cohort, again by RAE definition. Being on the first team is crucial to maximizing one's youth soccer outcome.

So now you're bringing out a new terms. Apparently "coach lock" is a component of RAE in your head and club "revenue" is also a component of RAE.

This is why people stop listening when you mention RAE.You use it as a super excuse and mix it with other things to get your way which most likely is your kid playing on an A team even when their ability doesnt justify it.

Not PP but this is testable. If you are right, post-puberty top teams (say U16+) will have a natural distribution by age overall. If RAE poster is right, it will still be skewed towards the younger end of the age cohort. I think the data shows the latter. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Its not testable because you'd have to track B team to A team players over multiple years and across different clubs/leagues.

Stated another way, if older B team players were the only ones able to get promoted after puberty, this would bolster the position that RAE has staying power, aka not temporary. This would be just moving deck chairs and the younger players would continue to be blocked from their potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loudoun Soccers FAQ just came out and said this - As of publication, MLS NEXT intends to remain with the current Jan-Dec age group chart; all other Loudoun Soccer leagues will transition to the new age group system.

The wording makes it sound like a decision has been made. Did I miss something, or was the answer poorly phrased?

MLS NEXT probably hadn’t indicated otherwise yet. The wording leaves the door open for an announcement later should that change. Last posted on here they were expecting a decision by January.

They’re an MLSN2 club so they just haven’t heard anything. Literally it has been radio silence for these poor MLSN2 clubs lol.

Interesting FAQ from their page regarding playing up from the new age groupings-

Approval for play ups are a coach and technical staff decision based on what is best for the individual player. Skill level, maturity, and overall development needs are the main factors considered. Generally, play ups will be approved only in exceptional circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loudoun Soccers FAQ just came out and said this - As of publication, MLS NEXT intends to remain with the current Jan-Dec age group chart; all other Loudoun Soccer leagues will transition to the new age group system.

The wording makes it sound like a decision has been made. Did I miss something, or was the answer poorly phrased?

MLS NEXT probably hadn’t indicated otherwise yet. The wording leaves the door open for an announcement later should that change. Last posted on here they were expecting a decision by January.

They’re an MLSN2 club so they just haven’t heard anything. Literally it has been radio silence for these poor MLSN2 clubs lol.

Interesting FAQ from their page regarding playing up from the new age groupings-

Approval for play ups are a coach and technical staff decision based on what is best for the individual player. Skill level, maturity, and overall development needs are the main factors considered. Generally, play ups will be approved only in exceptional circumstances.

MLS 1 clubs haven’t heard anything either, it’s been crickets for us.

The FAQ answer about playing up is oddly similar for multiple clubs. Almost like they are getting guidance from somewhere…

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

2nd team players get labelled 2nd players via coach lock and the fact that clubs want to increase revenue by bringing in players to the first team rather than promoting within. Second team players are younger than first team players in an age cohort, again by RAE definition. Being on the first team is crucial to maximizing one's youth soccer outcome.

So now you're bringing out a new terms. Apparently "coach lock" is a component of RAE in your head and club "revenue" is also a component of RAE.

This is why people stop listening when you mention RAE.You use it as a super excuse and mix it with other things to get your way which most likely is your kid playing on an A team even when their ability doesnt justify it.

Coach lock and team's maximizing revenue are not foreign concepts. I can only dumb things down so much for you without losing details.

If you still misunderstand things AI offers this and read the last line twice so it is very clear to you:

The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias where individuals born earlier in a selection period, such as a calendar year, have an advantage in youth sports and academics over those born later. This is often because a child born in September, for example, may be physically and developmentally more mature than a child born the following August, even though they are technically in the same school or sports year. This can lead to a cycle where "relatively older" children receive more playing time, positive feedback, and opportunities, which boosts their performance and confidence, while "relatively younger" children get discouraged and may drop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loudoun Soccers FAQ just came out and said this - As of publication, MLS NEXT intends to remain with the current Jan-Dec age group chart; all other Loudoun Soccer leagues will transition to the new age group system.

The wording makes it sound like a decision has been made. Did I miss something, or was the answer poorly phrased?

MLS NEXT probably hadn’t indicated otherwise yet. The wording leaves the door open for an announcement later should that change. Last posted on here they were expecting a decision by January.

They’re an MLSN2 club so they just haven’t heard anything. Literally it has been radio silence for these poor MLSN2 clubs lol.

Interesting FAQ from their page regarding playing up from the new age groupings-

Approval for play ups are a coach and technical staff decision based on what is best for the individual player. Skill level, maturity, and overall development needs are the main factors considered. Generally, play ups will be approved only in exceptional circumstances.

MLS 1 clubs haven’t heard anything either, it’s been crickets for us.

The FAQ answer about playing up is oddly similar for multiple clubs. Almost like they are getting guidance from somewhere…

We havent heard anything from my kids MLSn1 club, but I assume the directors have at least heard something.

I’m friends with a lead director at an MLSN2 club and they have gotten 0 guidance or information from MLSN. I think he regrets not taking ECRL instead lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loudoun Soccers FAQ just came out and said this - As of publication, MLS NEXT intends to remain with the current Jan-Dec age group chart; all other Loudoun Soccer leagues will transition to the new age group system.

The wording makes it sound like a decision has been made. Did I miss something, or was the answer poorly phrased?

MLS NEXT probably hadn’t indicated otherwise yet. The wording leaves the door open for an announcement later should that change. Last posted on here they were expecting a decision by January.

They’re an MLSN2 club so they just haven’t heard anything. Literally it has been radio silence for these poor MLSN2 clubs lol.

Interesting FAQ from their page regarding playing up from the new age groupings-

Approval for play ups are a coach and technical staff decision based on what is best for the individual player. Skill level, maturity, and overall development needs are the main factors considered. Generally, play ups will be approved only in exceptional circumstances.

MLS 1 clubs haven’t heard anything either, it’s been crickets for us.

The FAQ answer about playing up is oddly similar for multiple clubs. Almost like they are getting guidance from somewhere…

We havent heard anything from my kids MLSn1 club, but I assume the directors have at least heard something.

I’m friends with a lead director at an MLSN2 club and they have gotten 0 guidance or information from MLSN. I think he regrets not taking ECRL instead lol.

As of last week our TD (mls1) had heard nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s such a strange thing to get hung up on. If it impacts your kid, talk to your club. If they won’t play your kid with the correct grade, I’m sure there is a club out there at some level that will give you what you want. If it doesn’t impact your kid, stay out of it.

It is the same guy who wrecked the ECNL age change thread. It is a bummer because this thread could be useful to share what clubs are legitimately planning and when.

Confirming again there is one poster derailing this thread.

My daughter is U13 at a very competitive ECNL club (not MA). There hasn't been a single world stated about the age change yet. I'm sure it's coming *soon* , but just another data point.

That's kinda surprising. My DD's club has sent out a few communications about it and I'm not sure what the younger ages (U13, etc) have been doing, the HS age teams have done trainings and intraclub scrimmages with mixed teams. There will be quite a bit of movement for sure.

For the northeast we haven't even had a league game for high school players. That is probably why there's no discussion.

Trying to actually stay on topic unlike these other people. I was the OP from U13 club who has said nothing and this is exactly it. The HS age teams just started practicing and playing in their first showcases. I bet we hear more in the winter, but they literally have said NOTHING to date. I know all the possible scenarios, but there are plenty of parents who are completely in the dark right now.

Last winter we did a bunch of intrasquad scrimmages over different age groups along with friendlies with other clubs. I bet those scrimmages hold a higher importance this year.

Hey, I posted previously about our MA club that is in the middle of our HS club season and there has been discussion. Yeah, we have had a lot of intrasquad scrimmages and mixed age group practices. It's interesting, while there has been communications from the club about the upcoming change, I feel that the girls know more about what's happening based on what they are seeing at practice, scrimmages, etc. While my DD is not going anywhere, she has quite a few teammates that probably will be moving around as the new teams are formed.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

People who really understand RAE knows one of the issues is the early developers being on the A teams with the A coaches while the late developers are not selected for top teams and either get inferior training or drop out.

That's the reason Q1 and Q2 are more prominent after puberty equalizes physical maturity

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

The problem with your B team theory is no one plays up to be on a B team, only the A team. They may guest play on a B for experience, but that's it, especially if they are on the A team with their age (regardless of grade). Thank about it!

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

The problem with your B team theory is no one plays up to be on a B team, only the A team. They may guest play on a B for experience, but that's it, especially if they are on the A team with their age (regardless of grade). Thank about it!

Just admit that no matter what I say you're going to manipulate RAE into some reason your kid should be playing on an A team.

Also I know several that play and have played up on a grade up B team. (including my own kid) It all depends on the size and how competitive the club is.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

The problem with your B team theory is no one plays up to be on a B team, only the A team. They may guest play on a B for experience, but that's it, especially if they are on the A team with their age (regardless of grade). Thank about it!

Just admit that no matter what I say you're going to manipulate RAE into some reason your kid should be playing on an A team.

Also I know several that play and have played up on a grade up B team. (including my own kid) It all depends on the size and how competitive the club is.

That is crazy. Never heard a kid playing up an age group and then put on second team unless the team doesn't have top teams at each age group. Truly bizarre.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Not true, nice try.

Very true. Go ahead try and find a RAE paper or website that considers B teams as an alternate for youger players that aren't big/good enough for the A team. It doesn't exist because if you bring B teams into the discussion RAE doesnt work.

If players are young and not good enough for the A team playing on the B team will let them get more touches and develop more as a player. When they get older being younger evens out but the B team player has had the opportunity to be the top player on the team for multiple seasons. Once they jump up to the A team they'll be primed to work for a top position on the A team becasue thats what theyre used to.

RAE doesn't go away when kids get older. Top teams are over indexed on older kids in the age cohort. Period. Has nothing to do with your B team mumbo jumbo. Your Horatio Alger tale of B team to A team is a silly myth.

Go ahead try to find a RAE publication that includes B teams in the assessment. It doesnt exist because RAE falls appart if you include B teams. With the assumption that B team players will become A team players when they're older and the same size as everyone else on the team.

You are arguing that top teams will have a relatively even distribution after puberty presumably as B team players move to the top team. But the data doesn't back this up. The top teams remain skewed toward the older side of the age cohort. Essentially, the definition of RAE.

Do you admit that B team players if they're good will find their way to the A team as they ger older?

My experience has been that this happens with about half the team. Some of the B team players are older and some are younger. It's been about even.

If you think about it the younger aug/sept players that could play on a grade down A team would probabaly be the leaders on a correct grade B team. These are the ones most likely to be moved up to correct grade A team. Keep in mind that just because you want to play on a grade down A team doesnt mean that your kid will make the team.

The problem with your B team theory is no one plays up to be on a B team, only the A team. They may guest play on a B for experience, but that's it, especially if they are on the A team with their age (regardless of grade). Thank about it!

Just admit that no matter what I say you're going to manipulate RAE into some reason your kid should be playing on an A team.

Also I know several that play and have played up on a grade up B team. (including my own kid) It all depends on the size and how competitive the club is.

So, it sounds like different scenarios exist at different clubs. This is totally why they need and have the flexibility to decide what's best for each kid.

[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:The one part I am not sure how it will plan out are kid who are young for their team but a grade older than the other Q4s. For example, a September birthday who is in 6th grade. Do they stay with the 6th graders or have an option to play with 5th graders? If the intent is for school year alignment then it seems that there is two cascading criteria, but I am not sure if this is a hard or soft rule. Birthday and then school year or is really only based on your birthday.

Clubs that want to set their players up for being recruited and playing in college will put young Aug/Sept birthday players on the team thats their grade in school.

So you are saying it is a soft rule (ie at the discretion of each club) vs hard. Does anyone know that for fact? I think this has a big part in the spirit of the conversation you are having with your kid.

The way it worked pre 2017 (went clubs switched to BY) was the "better" higher level of competition clubs would always roster younger than the eligibility window players with their grade in school team. Other not as competitive clubs would let players play down a grade but everyone knew that if this player wanted to get recruited and play in college that they'd have to play up with their grade eventually. When this happens its usually easiest to switch clubs. So in the end it just makes more sense to roster young grade up players on the A or B team thats their grade in school.

One other thing, ten years ago there wasnt such a push by parents to redshirt and play down. In fact it was the opposite everyone wanted to play up which is sonehting US Soccer exploited to implement BY.

Wasn't true for my kids teams. All age based in SY.

Were your clubs top teams DA at the time?

Can you point to a doc or website where DA played on grade instead of age?

People weren't interested in playing down back then. It just wasnt something you ran into very often. If anything you'd hear about players playing up a grade and graduating HS early to play at some super college.

If this was true, it was a flaw in the system, because it put some kids at a disadvantage, making them the youngest on the team, younger than other states. A very few may have battled through and became tremendous players as a result (known as the underdog effect), but it was at the cost of others who may have been decent prospects but cycled out of the sport as a result. Leaving it up to the clubs and families makes a lot of sense.

If all players played on the same team this would be true. But because there's B team it doesn't make sense. You need to look more closely at all the RAE "proof" you cant live without. Almost all of it is geared to National Team selection only. Which means it doesn't consider B teams.

Forcing grades will advantage certain states and disadvantage a lot of players just because they went to school "on-time". Dumb. It's why they go with age first, then flexibility. If a kid is good enough and if you're right when they are a sophomore they need to be playing on grade, they'd be savvy to switch then.

That might be true at lower level clubs but at higher levels, the vast majority of players are not good enough to take a roster spot from a player on the top team a year up. So the idea that players are just going willy-nilly choose to play up a year is silly unless you are talking about lower level clubs. And if that is the case, who cares as they are not getting recruited from events anyway.

Depends on the club and team. A team in a top league that struggles offers a lot of opportunity. OR, they just do some showcases at grade when they have coach/school to impress.

Clubs, coaches, players and parents wont want oddball players from other teams guesting with their team. This wont work.

Guesting happens all the time in soccer, especially if there are injuries. Adding a college prospect for a showcase maybe even makes sense to help a team win.

Wins dont matter at showcases all that matters is the score was close and nobody wants guest players at showcase games.

The reason it doesn't make sense is the guest player would need to be communicating with college coaches 6-12 months in advance that they'll be guesting with XYZ team. Which they wouldn't know.

When teams win, the players play more confident and better. That certainly makes a difference if you're trying to impress. Yeah, you don't get a trophy but it can help you win a scholarship.

It really doesnt matter who wins a showcase game long as the game was competitive/close. (From a recruitment perspective)

This is because coaches might be playing certain players more than usual or start a different player than normal to give them playing time if they know a recruiter is watching

Is the team showing or the individual players?

Well, since college recruiters recruit players not teams you tell me which one is more important at a college showcase.

Seems they were telling you teams don't get recruited