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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
No, but now there's a bunch of kids who might be the oldest unless their forced to play with their grade -- your big thing in this and every thread. Look, if you're right and its a burden not to play at showcases with their grad class (others here have disagreed), let those families and clubs decide that this is challenging path they want to take, instead of forcing them to be the youngest on teams -- which also is challenging in its own right.
Here's the thing if your kid isnt good enough to play on their grade A or B teams 99% chance theyre also not good enough to play on the grade down A team. So where does this leave you? Playing on the grade down B team?
Clubs and coaches wont want to waste their time with young Aug/Sept birthdays playing on grade down A teams.
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
Yep, and being on the A team for years, has its advantages of the better coaching, competition, tournaments, extra practices, access to weight-training.
I didnt realize there was such a thing a A team weights. It also sounds like the A team is the only one that can do extra practices? Who knew?
Theres probably not any Rec, Futsal, Arena teams you can play on. (A teams fault again) If your kid is a girl is there any Latin leagues in the area? Usually these are cheap and coed if the girls are good.
It's a difference when the club provides it and you have to go do it yourself and that's why B team players who still have dreams do all the extras on their own. That's all I'm pointing out. Yet, some want to funnel kids who could be the oldest in their age group with those advantages onto B teams and say how easy it is to get to the A team later. I mean it's possible, but if you've read this thread, you'll realize it's a long road.
When my kid played on a B team the players that made it to the A team were all doing Futsal, would play in other leagues, would guest with other clubs, would play up when asked by the club, went to all the extra training sessions, and had connections into multiple clubs. None of them complained about age or RAE.
Sure, and did it surprise you that the large majority of those kids were born in Q1/Q2 (if you paid attention)? Wonder how that happened? Of course, there are exceptions and that could be clouding your judgment.
Honestly I never looked or cared. Until the BY to SY change I didnt know who was the oldest and who was the youngest on the team. Ironically the youngest on the team has been attending USYNT ID Sessions.
Either way If RAE is a bunch of poop or if its real theres nothing you can do about it as a player or parent. You cant change your kids birthday. My youngest is a July birthday and shes small. I know shes screwed and its going to be an uphill battle but who cares. If she wants it bad enough things will happen. Shes already is the 2nd best scorer on her team.
Your head in the sand and attitude towards others is just generic selfishness where learning is stunted by bias. "Honestly, I never looked or cared. Until the BY to SY change I didnt know who was the oldest and who was the youngest on the team." and, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt."
Anonymous wrote:Playing every game and practice vs older kids and then changing to system where you never play against an older kid is a game changer for most kids.
The opposite is also true.
All these are reasons to give parents and clubs flexibility during this change and not force kids to any situation beyond the age reclassification.
At a local big club (not BSC!) we had a coach who used to take the smaller weak kids, mine was one and youngest on the team, and have them body-push against the biggest. Who were mostly Jan - March bdays. Then he would tell them they weren’t strong enough to play. This was age 8. Yes we left the club, and he is gone now, but how crazy is that? So by age 8, you don’t get to play, you sit for much of the practice while the better half plays, and you are told how weak you are. Now imagine the boost that the oldest and biggest kids had. And several of them are indeed on local first teams now. There are exceptions to every rule but this is how things play out with a late birthday. And this is why many B team kids will not make a younger first team.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Do not accept RAE is BS because there is nothing you can do about it just like you should not accept man made climate change and racism are BS (which they aren't) because their is nothing you can do about them.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
No, but now there's a bunch of kids who might be the oldest unless their forced to play with their grade -- your big thing in this and every thread. Look, if you're right and its a burden not to play at showcases with their grad class (others here have disagreed), let those families and clubs decide that this is challenging path they want to take, instead of forcing them to be the youngest on teams -- which also is challenging in its own right.
Here's the thing if your kid isnt good enough to play on their grade A or B teams 99% chance theyre also not good enough to play on the grade down A team. So where does this leave you? Playing on the grade down B team?
Clubs and coaches wont want to waste their time with young Aug/Sept birthdays playing on grade down A teams.
Well, then you won't have anything to worry about and you should stop harping on it so much.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
Unfortunately this is how RAE plays out, the youngest tend not to play.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
No, but now there's a bunch of kids who might be the oldest unless their forced to play with their grade -- your big thing in this and every thread. Look, if you're right and its a burden not to play at showcases with their grad class (others here have disagreed), let those families and clubs decide that this is challenging path they want to take, instead of forcing them to be the youngest on teams -- which also is challenging in its own right.
Here's the thing if your kid isnt good enough to play on their grade A or B teams 99% chance theyre also not good enough to play on the grade down A team. So where does this leave you? Playing on the grade down B team?
Clubs and coaches wont want to waste their time with young Aug/Sept birthdays playing on grade down A teams.
May-July birthdays have the least likely chance of playing in college. Automatically shoving them to B and C teams is problematic. August will be fine anyway you slice it.
Anonymous wrote:At a local big club (not BSC!) we had a coach who used to take the smaller weak kids, mine was one and youngest on the team, and have them body-push against the biggest. Who were mostly Jan - March bdays. Then he would tell them they weren’t strong enough to play. This was age 8. Yes we left the club, and he is gone now, but how crazy is that? So by age 8, you don’t get to play, you sit for much of the practice while the better half plays, and you are told how weak you are. Now imagine the boost that the oldest and biggest kids had. And several of them are indeed on local first teams now. There are exceptions to every rule but this is how things play out with a late birthday. And this is why many B team kids will not make a younger first team.
At younger ages (especially for girls) being more aggressive is a tactic for wins. I've seen it work multiple times especially if the ref allows it.
Anonymous wrote:At a local big club (not BSC!) we had a coach who used to take the smaller weak kids, mine was one and youngest on the team, and have them body-push against the biggest. Who were mostly Jan - March bdays. Then he would tell them they weren’t strong enough to play. This was age 8. Yes we left the club, and he is gone now, but how crazy is that? So by age 8, you don’t get to play, you sit for much of the practice while the better half plays, and you are told how weak you are. Now imagine the boost that the oldest and biggest kids had. And several of them are indeed on local first teams now. There are exceptions to every rule but this is how things play out with a late birthday. And this is why many B team kids will not make a younger first team.
At younger ages (especially for girls) being more aggressive is a tactic for wins. I've seen it work multiple times especially if the ref allows it.
Yup exactly - it's pretty ridiculous what gets called at the youngest ages so the bowling balls are successful early on. They continue onto the top teams and some actually learn how to play. Others can get by just with size for several years.
Anonymous wrote:At a local big club (not BSC!) we had a coach who used to take the smaller weak kids, mine was one and youngest on the team, and have them body-push against the biggest. Who were mostly Jan - March bdays. Then he would tell them they weren’t strong enough to play. This was age 8. Yes we left the club, and he is gone now, but how crazy is that? So by age 8, you don’t get to play, you sit for much of the practice while the better half plays, and you are told how weak you are. Now imagine the boost that the oldest and biggest kids had. And several of them are indeed on local first teams now. There are exceptions to every rule but this is how things play out with a late birthday. And this is why many B team kids will not make a younger first team.
At younger ages (especially for girls) being more aggressive is a tactic for wins. I've seen it work multiple times especially if the ref allows it.
Yup exactly - it's pretty ridiculous what gets called at the youngest ages so the bowling balls are successful early on. They continue onto the top teams and some actually learn how to play. Others can get by just with size for several years.
Or just show that you can juggle 100+ times in row.
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.
As an economist, I will point out that you ignored age discrepancies within the age bracket; the freakin' thing being discussed. OMG, know wonder all these rocket ships are blowing up.
As an Economic Advisor to the UN its prudent to point out that all the RAE studies only include A teams for player placement. This is because when you include B teams the RAE narrative falls appart. Especially if you track B to A team progression over time.
Actually ye who failed Econ 101
The real RAE studies always show the Kevin De Bruyne's and other stars who were on B teams because of RAE
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
No, but now there's a bunch of kids who might be the oldest unless their forced to play with their grade -- your big thing in this and every thread. Look, if you're right and its a burden not to play at showcases with their grad class (others here have disagreed), let those families and clubs decide that this is challenging path they want to take, instead of forcing them to be the youngest on teams -- which also is challenging in its own right.
Here's the thing if your kid isnt good enough to play on their grade A or B teams 99% chance theyre also not good enough to play on the grade down A team. So where does this leave you? Playing on the grade down B team?
Clubs and coaches wont want to waste their time with young Aug/Sept birthdays playing on grade down A teams.
Clubs want kids to play on age, great get to play up and squeaky wheels sometimes get to play up. Clubs aren't wasting their time with anyone. They are taking $3,000 more or less for a 10 month youth sport regardless of age or team level where they can cut you the next year or you can leave on your own or you can come back the next year and start the process over again. No loyalty on either side.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
No, but now there's a bunch of kids who might be the oldest unless their forced to play with their grade -- your big thing in this and every thread. Look, if you're right and its a burden not to play at showcases with their grad class (others here have disagreed), let those families and clubs decide that this is challenging path they want to take, instead of forcing them to be the youngest on teams -- which also is challenging in its own right.
Here's the thing if your kid isnt good enough to play on their grade A or B teams 99% chance theyre also not good enough to play on the grade down A team. So where does this leave you? Playing on the grade down B team?
Clubs and coaches wont want to waste their time with young Aug/Sept birthdays playing on grade down A teams.
Clubs want kids to play on age, great get to play up and squeaky wheels sometimes get to play up. Clubs aren't wasting their time with anyone. They are taking $3,000 more or less for a 10 month youth sport regardless of age or team level where they can cut you the next year or you can leave on your own or you can come back the next year and start the process over again. No loyalty on either side.
Its way easier to say players in X grade go over there and Y grade come with us during tryouts.
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.
RAE isn't being used as an excuse. It is a factor in understanding the development of individual players relative to their status on the age distribution of players in their player pool.
It is like the oldest are starting to ride a bike with a push while the youngest have to start with the brakes continually rubbing the tire. The youngest may get stronger but most find another sport instead.
I am sure that hearing that certain kids got opportunities not available to others can bother you because it undermines your belief that everyone has the same chances in life, unfortunately this simply isn't true. Shockingly youth sports ignores RAE unless you realize that the system was setup by babyboomers who tend to ignore science so here we are. Those in winning side don't want to change the rules and those on the losing side do but nobody is trying for fairness, they all want an edge.
If RAE didn't exist would anybody care about the age change? Hell, no.
I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand.
No matter what my kid was going to make the A team. We did futsal, arena/indoor, rec, latin leagues, etc. They were the one dragging my to sign them up. They were the one getting asked by friends to guest with their team. This was all as a Sept birthday. Which is ironic because now with the BY to SY change they're going to be an absolute beast. I feel sorry for the younger players because they dont have a chance.
This is very understood by everyone who has read your attempts at cyberbullying while ruining multiple threads, "I don't care who got an opportunity that my kid didnt. This is what you don't understand."
The only person ruining threads is you.
RAE is BS because theres nothing you can do about it.
Playing on a grade down team has repercussions and is detrimental to being recruited for playing in college.
Go have your pity party somewhere else. I can show you how to get your kid on an A team. But it takes work and dedication and even with all the hard work your kid might not make it. Sorry thats just how it works. Wait until you see that A team players who dont have to work out or even train and they're naturally better than everyone on the team. What excuse will you bring out then?
Everyone here agrees that no matter how talented your kid is OR when they were born, they still have to work their tail off to achieve their best.
That said, there's plenty to do, especially now that the age groups are changing and savvy parents will be looking to maximize their kid's chances where that hard work may pay off beyond just the fun and privilege of playing a sport. Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage, in youth sports.
You keep saying RAE type things. "Being the oldest, on average, is a built-in advantage" Again, you cant change your kids birthday so why does it matter? Using your logic if your kid is not the oldest they might as well not play.
New entrant to the discussion. I acknowledge RAE exists but I don’t pay attention to it because I can’t control it. If people studied more sports psychology about belief and why you can achieve something, you would be more successful than believing in some theory of why your child is bound to fail.
My kid is a Q4 2014. I never paid attention to her birthday at all until this fall when we were doing middle school shopping and noticed all of her old teammates were already in middle school. I then began to process that she is technically a 2015 per the school classes.
While she is middle of the pack, 1st team on a big club, she will be the number #1 or #2 if she repeats U12. Her skill is the same but she is simply at the top of the band and not the bottom.
Now, it will not matter just like I never accepted excuses that she was younger in our current system. When she played bigger girls, I taught her to scan and play with anticipation. She can’t change being slight. She can learn how to beat Goliath. I imagine my daughter will now be the Goliath if we repeat U12 and there will be Q2 2015’s coming after her if she does not continue to develop.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}