Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
This is true, although it depends on if the kid is a club coach’s kid. I think the bigger issue is the parents that complain about the politics (that boost a couple of kids), or the late birthdays, or height, or even the judgement of “that kids isn’t as good as my kid” are all finding excuses. Yeah, by and large the cream does rise to the top. Not always. But mostly. And the harsh reality is, there IS ALWAYS someone better. And speaking as non-nepo / non-networked parent of a kid who is the top kid in an age up of a very well known, well regarded nationally club. It isn’t better on this side of the coin, it’s much much harder. It’s easy to chase, hard to stay ahead. So it’s easy to complain about all the reasons why your kid isn’t on this team, or how that kid (subjectively) doesn’t deserve whatever it is. But it is so so so much harder to do the work day in and day out to be the best. If my DC had different aspirations I’d trade in a heartbeat the ignorance of chasing for this, it’s hard on everyone. |
Anonymous
By focusing on a "but sometimes" scenario, you missed the point. See research on the declining of social mobility in the US and the role that luck plays in success (and is under appreciated by those that are successful) to evaluate the value of opportunities vs. barriers. |
Anonymous
Huh? This seems contradictory, can you explain what you mean? |
Anonymous
There is no declining social mobility in the US. Flat out no. Studies to date are worthless and do not take into account immigrants. Luck yes but only if you are fully prepared when luck arrives. I would say that there is no luck in that case. When you get your shot you have to be ready. |
Anonymous
The question is what variables or parameters (opportunity, barriers) of a game (or model) lead to the maximum probability of a positive outcome (and in this case, success with regard to soccer)? |
Anonymous
If luck or money or connections get you on a high level actually elite team, your potential and performance has to keep you there. Forget all the other gobbledegook |
Anonymous
Yep, get that. The whole social mobility stuff is where I got lost - that doesn’t seem to make the point that poster was trying to make. Regardless, the nepotism to elite team, but have to be elite to stay is also a contradiction, as relative competition would be crowded out by nepotism. This is fairly well studied in industries like business, local government / politics, Salt Lake City’s employment market, etc. Where it becomes nearly impossible to merit-into roles because of nepotism at all levels. Some sports are like this to in the US, like Tennis, where much of the access to opportunities is gatekept by well networked “former” athletes. And so you have two pools of players - the nepos and the non-nepos, the former is a much smaller pool, but has an overrepresentstion at the highest levels, but the non-nepos tend to have populate the highest rankings. I think that illustrates your point about having to perform to stay there well, but it also illustrates (I think?) what the other poster was trying to say about the reality of “nepo-opportunity-recapture.” |
Anonymous
Where you grew up and your parents income is also a gatekeeper. As is your birth month with respect to the youth soccer year as defined. Sometimes, you never get an opportunity. Resilience isn't some magical dust that levels the playing field. RAE is real as proven by the interest proven by the number of posts on this thread and actual research. Look at the birth years of the men's Olympic soccer team and you see RAE effects there also. |
Anonymous
| ECNL should do bio-banding to give the late bloomers a chance to continue to develop. This will also have a minimal impact on the existing system if the grade year is a big deal. MLS Next is doing it, so bio-banding has its value. |
Anonymous
| They are going to Grad Year so don’t worry about it. |
Anonymous
| Nothing is going to change. There is no incentive for US Soccer to do anything. |
Anonymous
As said earlier, they don't have to do anything. ECNL just have to call kids born in Sept-Dec as late bloomers so they can play a year down, in essence just copy MLS Next late bloomer loophole with a definition of born late in the year as a late bloomer as opposed the MLS Next method of apply and get approval. Nobody brought up the point that the teams and payments are really set on school year so these calendar year age groups have felt a bit like a square peg in a round hole any way. Seems if we went all in on calendar year, new teams would have been set say in Feb and the "season" would end in say Nov. |
Anonymous
Yes!! Thank you for this, it is super odd that the "year" stretches over two calendar years instead of just being inside one. |
Anonymous
There was no incentive to change things to BY so who knows what will happen. But was told “its a definite maybe”. Which was a real comment I heard from a guy who works for US soccer. But that was back in June. |
Anonymous
|
USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.
Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032. https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/ |