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: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean, yes and no. You need to be on a good enough team to get into most of the 'showcases' that actually matter. Being the star player on a bottom of the table MLSN team does very little for you and your recruiting pathway is almost as difficult as playing in any random league.

So yes, teams do help you get recruited. They get you to the showcase, they are the ones that have to have a good enough reputation for a college coach to decide to actually come and watch you play at a showcase. So while the end result is 'college recruiters recruit players not teams' is true, it is only a small part of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean, yes and no. You need to be on a good enough team to get into most of the 'showcases' that actually matter. Being the star player on a bottom of the table MLSN team does very little for you and your recruiting pathway is almost as difficult as playing in any random league.

So yes, teams do help you get recruited. They get you to the showcase, they are the ones that have to have a good enough reputation for a college coach to decide to actually come and watch you play at a showcase. So while the end result is 'college recruiters recruit players not teams' is true, it is only a small part of the story.

That's great nuance, but there's some posters on here who see everything as black OR white, right OR wrong, good OR bad, based on their own experience.

[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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

Yeah, you are playing catch-up. I'm seeing it right now at my kid's club. People end up paying for private lessons AND/OR the ones who still do ODP AND/OR play futsal (Note, top team players do these things as well, still). It'll be interesting to see if any of these players -- who in what I've seen are Q4 -- get the chance to get on the A team as they go from youngest to to oldest in their age group.

[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: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

Yeah, you are playing catch-up. I'm seeing it right now at my kid's club. People end up paying for private lessons AND/OR the ones who still do ODP AND/OR play futsal (Note, top team players do these things as well, still). It'll be interesting to see if any of these players -- who in what I've seen are Q4 -- get the chance to get on the A team as they go from youngest to to oldest in their age group.

How is doing the extras playing catch up if all the A team are doing them as well? It sounds more like status quo.

[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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

As a Molecular Rocket Engineer/Scientist you are wrong. As has been stated multiple times top players will find an A team to play on. It might not be at your club it also might also be at your club. Coaches are always looking for a way to win (believe it or not). What do you think woukd happen if an A team player guested with the B team and tried their hardest at a game. Most likely if they were a forward they would score at will. If they were a mid or defender they would win every 1on1 and control the field. This is why they play on the A team and this is also why B team players play on the B team. By the time players get to HS players have been sorted by physical ability. It has nothing to do with coaching.

if you want to see the reason A team players are on the A team and B team players are on the B team. Watch High School soccer tryouts. They all play each other and Its obvious which players are better and which are worse.

[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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

Yeah, you are playing catch-up. I'm seeing it right now at my kid's club. People end up paying for private lessons AND/OR the ones who still do ODP AND/OR play futsal (Note, top team players do these things as well, still). It'll be interesting to see if any of these players -- who in what I've seen are Q4 -- get the chance to get on the A team as they go from youngest to to oldest in their age group.

How is doing the extras playing catch up if all the A team are doing them as well? It sounds more like status quo.

The opportunities arise from players dropping off from all teams, especially if those teams aren't winning and not everyone does all the extras. Also, people here talk so much about showcases but if you're losing 5-0, 8-0, 3-0, it's definitely not helping, especially when one adds all the travel and expense.

[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: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

As a Molecular Rocket Engineer/Scientist you are wrong. As has been stated multiple times top players will find an A team to play on. It might not be at your club it also might also be at your club. Coaches are always looking for a way to win (believe it or not). What do you think woukd happen if an A team player guested with the B team and tried their hardest at a game. Most likely if they were a forward they would score at will. If they were a mid or defender they would win every 1on1 and control the field. This is why they play on the A team and this is also why B team players play on the B team. By the time players get to HS players have been sorted by physical ability. It has nothing to do with coaching.

if you want to see the reason A team players are on the A team and B team players are on the B team. Watch High School soccer tryouts. They all play each other and Its obvious which players are better and which are worse.

This is sorta true, except the part where half the B team has the youngest players in the player pool AND those kids are the ones more likely to play on varsity as freshmen, at least under the BY system. (Also, some A team players skip HS altogether).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

Yeah, you are playing catch-up. I'm seeing it right now at my kid's club. People end up paying for private lessons AND/OR the ones who still do ODP AND/OR play futsal (Note, top team players do these things as well, still). It'll be interesting to see if any of these players -- who in what I've seen are Q4 -- get the chance to get on the A team as they go from youngest to to oldest in their age group.

How is doing the extras playing catch up if all the A team are doing them as well? It sounds more like status quo.

The opportunities arise from players dropping off from all teams, especially if those teams aren't winning and not everyone does all the extras. Also, people here talk so much about showcases but if you're losing 5-0, 8-0, 3-0, it's definitely not helping, especially when one adds all the travel and expense.

If you put an A team player on the team thats losing 0-5 0-8 etc do you think they would get noticed before everyone else if people didnt know they were A team players.

My experience is yes they would be noticeably better and recruited by other coaches. Is this an example of RAE or are they just better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

Yeah, you are playing catch-up. I'm seeing it right now at my kid's club. People end up paying for private lessons AND/OR the ones who still do ODP AND/OR play futsal (Note, top team players do these things as well, still). It'll be interesting to see if any of these players -- who in what I've seen are Q4 -- get the chance to get on the A team as they go from youngest to to oldest in their age group.

How is doing the extras playing catch up if all the A team are doing them as well? It sounds more like status quo.

The opportunities arise from players dropping off from all teams, especially if those teams aren't winning and not everyone does all the extras. Also, people here talk so much about showcases but if you're losing 5-0, 8-0, 3-0, it's definitely not helping, especially when one adds all the travel and expense.

If you put an A team player on the team thats losing 0-5 0-8 etc do you think they would get noticed before everyone else if people didnt know they were A team players.

My experience is yes they would be noticeably better and recruited by other coaches. Is this an example of RAE or are they just better?

The problem happens when it's the A team losing. And the B team doesn't go to the big showcases. They go to the ones with NAIA schools and community colleges. The ones I've seen have been pretty even, very much like some HS play -- again there's a world where if you have dreams, there's a pathway but it's a long shot and you have a better shot on the A team.

[Anonymous]

Biggest difference I see between A and B teams is speed of play.

[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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

As a Molecular Rocket Engineer/Scientist you are wrong. As has been stated multiple times top players will find an A team to play on. It might not be at your club it also might also be at your club. Coaches are always looking for a way to win (believe it or not). What do you think woukd happen if an A team player guested with the B team and tried their hardest at a game. Most likely if they were a forward they would score at will. If they were a mid or defender they would win every 1on1 and control the field. This is why they play on the A team and this is also why B team players play on the B team. By the time players get to HS players have been sorted by physical ability. It has nothing to do with coaching.

if you want to see the reason A team players are on the A team and B team players are on the B team. Watch High School soccer tryouts. They all play each other and Its obvious which players are better and which are worse.

This is sorta true, except the part where half the B team has the youngest players in the player pool AND those kids are the ones more likely to play on varsity as freshmen, at least under the BY system. (Also, some A team players skip HS altogether).

This is the problem with RAE its a super excuse that can be used to justify anything.

Are there winners / losers in the birthday lottery? Yes

Does complaining about RAE change anything? No

Everyone has natural talent and abilities. For some its going to be playing soccer. Some will get lucky and be the oldest. Some will be natualy talented and the youngest. Either way both of these players will need to work their butts off to maintain their spot on the A team. I think its disingenuous to say that players are only on the A team because of when they were born. Everyone has opportunities its what you make of them that sets players appart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

I mean, yes and no. You need to be on a good enough team to get into most of the 'showcases' that actually matter. Being the star player on a bottom of the table MLSN team does very little for you and your recruiting pathway is almost as difficult as playing in any random league.

So yes, teams do help you get recruited. They get you to the showcase, they are the ones that have to have a good enough reputation for a college coach to decide to actually come and watch you play at a showcase. So while the end result is 'college recruiters recruit players not teams' is true, it is only a small part of the story.

That's great nuance, but there's some posters on here who see everything as black OR white, right OR wrong, good OR bad, based on their own experience.

Thanks! The problem is, from what I can see in this thread, 'their own experience' is actually zero regarding college recruiting and they are just saying things they have heard or what they thinks makes logical sense (based on their limited youth soccer experience). And, what you 'hear' and what seems as if it should be 'common sense' will lead you down the wrong path...

This thread now seems derailed into a strange debate about RAE (not sure why) but please, anyone reading this, do not take any college recruiting lessons from this thread or really any thread on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PP is exactly right. I am a data scientist. RAE is real. It's meant to be interpreted at a population level but you can see it play out on teams in the area, including ours. And coach bias is real too. Once a B team player by HS, it is next to impossible to move up. Your coaching has been worse, your teammates are worse, and the field competition has been worse. You have had fewer practices, games, and showcases. You are trying to play catch-up to kids that have had the top of all of this probably for several years. It can happen, but odds are not in your favor. That's RAE and coach bias in action.

As a Molecular Rocket Engineer/Scientist you are wrong. As has been stated multiple times top players will find an A team to play on. It might not be at your club it also might also be at your club. Coaches are always looking for a way to win (believe it or not). What do you think woukd happen if an A team player guested with the B team and tried their hardest at a game. Most likely if they were a forward they would score at will. If they were a mid or defender they would win every 1on1 and control the field. This is why they play on the A team and this is also why B team players play on the B team. By the time players get to HS players have been sorted by physical ability. It has nothing to do with coaching.

if you want to see the reason A team players are on the A team and B team players are on the B team. Watch High School soccer tryouts. They all play each other and Its obvious which players are better and which are worse.

This is sorta true, except the part where half the B team has the youngest players in the player pool AND those kids are the ones more likely to play on varsity as freshmen, at least under the BY system. (Also, some A team players skip HS altogether).

This is the problem with RAE its a super excuse that can be used to justify anything.

Are there winners / losers in the birthday lottery? Yes

Does complaining about RAE change anything? No

Everyone has natural talent and abilities. For some its going to be playing soccer. Some will get lucky and be the oldest. Some will be natualy talented and the youngest. Either way both of these players will need to work their butts off to maintain their spot on the A team. I think its disingenuous to say that players are only on the A team because of when they were born. Everyone has opportunities its what you make of them that sets players appart.

I don't think people are complaining about RAE. They are just pointing out its impact and how it'll now shift and how it'll be pretty chaotic in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biggest difference I see between A and B teams is speed of play.

Its also accuracy and power of shots on goal, general aggressiveness, soccer IQ, determination. effort, etc etc etc