ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The selection filter certainly doesn't end with making an ECNL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

It could possibly be filtering out our next Pulisic's and Mckinnie's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

There are SO many reasons they leave, tho. ... Other sport opportunities, toxic coaches, teammates, parents, burnout from too much training, injuries, too expensive, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The effects don't end just because you made the best team. Within the team, the younger kids are less likely to play key roles, less likely to get disproportionate playing time, less likely to get coach focus, less likely to be team leaders, have lower confidence, etc. It's not always the same experience for every kid on a team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

I agree. They came across this episode as people that know everything and have nothing to learn, and that their perspective is the only correct perspective. Typically I lump people like that into the idiot category. And in for SY!

This episode also made it pretty clear that they view college as the only destination for us players, and a terminal destination, because the next stop for a college player, in their words was to either coach, or raise a kid that plays soccer.

I’m really not sure what to think about ECNL’s future as the college landscape changes.

From percentages though what number of youth soccer players get to play Div 1. Then from there what percentage makes it pro. Am I the only one that remembers the ncaa ad campaign "I went pro in something else"? There is allot to be said about keeping kids in the pipeline with dreams of college soccer. Listening to that non earth shattering podcast that was actually the most interesting part of it. Limit international players and as much as I'm against the incoming administration that seems like something they should be on board with.

I get what you’re saying. One of my kids plays tennis, and the internationals rule that landscape, so is poses a real issue.

I guess what I’m discouraged about is that in their view, US Soccer ends at college, and that seems to be the only option they see for kids to continue playing. And let’s be honest, US college soccer does not produce or prepare, especially on the men’s side, players ready for professional play. College soccer is very different from professional soccer - obviously it has to. In a lot of ways HS soccer is a closer product to college soccer. And their vision doesn’t advance US soccer at all, it actually holds it back.

I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. This is the first time I’ve come away from their podcasts think “wow, these guys are thinking way too narrowly and small. And I’m actually not so sure they are doing the homework on these big questions to inform their opinions.”

What is the best way to advance soccer is to have college soccer be the highest level? College soccer is the highest level most will play -- only a few go pro and now many that go pro are skipping college -- soccer is a game not the be all and end all. Most are dumb to go pro.

On the girls side, Pro means so many different things. Play for Chelsea or play for the 2nd division in Greece or Iceland. A not insignificant portion of standout collegiate players choose to get on with their lives vs being a minimum salary NWSL player. And fewer still go straight from youth ENCL or Academies to playing meaningful minutes in a true pro system. So, yes, I think college is the end goal/pinnacle for most top girls soccer players. At least with the current strategy of US Soccer. I reserve the right to change my mind if they develop free elite academies in the US for the sole purpose of developing elite pros, similar to the MLS Academies.

Pay/benefits improving for NWSL ... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/23/nwsl-gets-rid-of-draft-raises-players-minimum-salary-with-new-agreement.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

There are SO many reasons they leave, tho. ... Other sport opportunities, toxic coaches, teammates, parents, burnout from too much training, injuries, too expensive, etc.

So we fix this, and then also start trying to fix those things too? No one is saying this is soccer's only problem to address. Those other problems may be harder to address though, so low-hanging fruit first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

There are SO many reasons they leave, tho. ... Other sport opportunities, toxic coaches, teammates, parents, burnout from too much training, injuries, too expensive, etc.

So we fix this, and then also start trying to fix those things too? No one is saying this is soccer's only problem to address. Those other problems may be harder to address though, so low-hanging fruit first.

Yes, BUT fix it right with a better transition than last time. If too quick/not well-thought-out, this change will accelerate people leaving who currently play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

There are SO many reasons they leave, tho. ... Other sport opportunities, toxic coaches, teammates, parents, burnout from too much training, injuries, too expensive, etc.

So we fix this, and then also start trying to fix those things too? No one is saying this is soccer's only problem to address. Those other problems may be harder to address though, so low-hanging fruit first.

Yes, BUT fix it right with a better transition than last time. If too quick/not well-thought-out, this change will accelerate people leaving who currently play.

On the other hand, moving too slow could produce those same outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The reason US Soccer might change is to address participation - same for ENCL. They want kids to not leave once in the system.

There are SO many reasons they leave, tho. ... Other sport opportunities, toxic coaches, teammates, parents, burnout from too much training, injuries, too expensive, etc.

So we fix this, and then also start trying to fix those things too? No one is saying this is soccer's only problem to address. Those other problems may be harder to address though, so low-hanging fruit first.

Yes, BUT fix it right with a better transition than last time. If too quick/not well-thought-out, this change will accelerate people leaving who currently play.

On the other hand, moving too slow could produce those same outcomes.

It has to be a player-first mentality, not more of a club-first one (really, it should be both). Much of this thread, however, is about this league will outdo that one with the transition and how some players will now get to outshine others. That's not the recipe for a great transition. More like rinse, repeat from a decade ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The selection filter certainly doesn't end with making an ECNL team.

But this is an ECNL thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The effects don't end just because you made the best team. Within the team, the younger kids are less likely to play key roles, less likely to get disproportionate playing time, less likely to get coach focus, less likely to be team leaders, have lower confidence, etc. It's not always the same experience for every kid on a team.

That's now a Coaching issue
An individual development issue

Not RAE issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

How wrong you are: https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-important-is-the-birth-date-in-football-players-sports-career/

Anonymous wrote:The results of the study suggest two very relevant conclusions: (i) Players born in the first quarter of the year are more likely to play in a professional club and reach the elite than those born in the last quarter, which confirms the detrimental effect of the RAE in young players. The number of players born in the first and second quarter of the year was significantly higher (p<0.01) than that of those born in the third and fourth quarter in U-12, U-14, U-16 and U-19, categories, and reserve team.

Interesting, once they've made it to the top level, RAE evens out, but it filters kids early on. The main goal of the proposed SY switch it is to stop the double whammy of RAE (which just moves) on Q3/Q4 kids PLUS the trapped player/not playing with classmates.

Thought this thread was about kids already on ECNL teams, which would mean they already got past the Selection filter.

RAE impacts kids who are talented, have potential, but are not selected to the top tier teams.

So if your kid is already on the ECNL 2010's or 2011's or 2012's, what's their RAE problem?

The selection filter certainly doesn't end with making an ECNL team.

But this is an ECNL thread.

I am not understanding what your point is?