ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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 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.

What came first? The egg or the Chicken?

[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 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?

This thread is about SY for ECNL

Its not about MLS Next or college or professional ranks

[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 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?

This thread is about SY for ECNL

Its not about MLS Next or college or professional ranks

My point was that even within an ECNL team there is a RAE, I believe a previous poster described that issue. You just want to argue semantics.

[Anonymous]

From the last ECNL podcast:
"[Y]ou still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage."

Do others agree with this? It is the most common argument in favor of birth year - that it's better for the small segment who will play pro or for youth national teams. He's saying even that is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Its obviously wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the last ECNL podcast:
"[Y]ou still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage."

Do others agree with this? It is the most common argument in favor of birth year - that it's better for the small segment who will play pro or for youth national teams. He's saying even that is wrong.

Is there any studies or data, that changing to BY registration has improved our NT? Or is this all anecdotal?

[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.

This stopped being an exclusive ECNL thread about 396 pages ago.

[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.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

So what?

At best it is an 8-10 year job and then what? More likely it is a 2-4 year job and then what? Many of these girls have options. On a visit we had at an IVY half of the women on the team were pre-med. Sure you could play for a couple of years and then med school -- NFL players have done that (Florida State player a couple of years back was at MassGen) and Lin did that in the NBA out of Harvard -- he made millions. But the potential payday from doing this is just not there for almost all.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who knows about pro sports doesnt want their kid playing any form of pro soccer in America.

Minor league baseball pays way more!

[Anonymous]

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.

Thants not true. But Stanford is probably not in reach,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new standard also strives to lessen relative age effect (RAE). RAE is a selection bias towards players born earlier in the calendar year. Players born in early months are naturally older and more mature, but not necessarily better players. While the change to birth year registration won’t completely solve the problem, it will make it easier to identify and understand.“

This is a passage taken from a press release in 2017 describing the change over. I can’t wrap my mind around this logic.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

What’s the circle on the logic?

It would improve RAE on the NT, by creating more RAE in the feeder system i.e. youth soccer

Or should I say shifting the RAE

I see. Yeah you don’t understand that benchmarking aspect to talent ID and adjusting for RAE at the NT level.

Logic isn’t circular, but requires understanding of the talent id aspect.

[Anonymous]

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.

This is why people on both sides are arguing for or against BY. Because RAE is real. If BY people weren't really nervous about a change that allows older kids to play against their children they wouldn't be here complaining and arguing with pro SY people. ECNL level is tough and any advantage you can get you take.

When and if the change does happen we will find out if Q1/2 kids were always just better players or if they were just benefiting from the way the age groups were configured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new standard also strives to lessen relative age effect (RAE). RAE is a selection bias towards players born earlier in the calendar year. Players born in early months are naturally older and more mature, but not necessarily better players. While the change to birth year registration won’t completely solve the problem, it will make it easier to identify and understand.“

This is a passage taken from a press release in 2017 describing the change over. I can’t wrap my mind around this logic.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

What’s the circle on the logic?

It would improve RAE on the NT, by creating more RAE in the feeder system i.e. youth soccer

Or should I say shifting the RAE

I see. Yeah you don’t understand that benchmarking aspect to talent ID and adjusting for RAE at the NT level.

Logic isn’t circular, but requires understanding of the talent id aspect.

It is spinning while trying not to explicitly state what it is doing, trying to get the best players to be Q1 and sometimes Q2 so YNTs can be older when competing internationally. So it can ID older talent and adjust RAE so the YNT are older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The new standard also strives to lessen relative age effect (RAE). RAE is a selection bias towards players born earlier in the calendar year. Players born in early months are naturally older and more mature, but not necessarily better players. While the change to birth year registration won’t completely solve the problem, it will make it easier to identify and understand.“

This is a passage taken from a press release in 2017 describing the change over. I can’t wrap my mind around this logic.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

What’s the circle on the logic?

It would improve RAE on the NT, by creating more RAE in the feeder system i.e. youth soccer

Or should I say shifting the RAE

I see. Yeah you don’t understand that benchmarking aspect to talent ID and adjusting for RAE at the NT level.

Logic isn’t circular, but requires understanding of the talent id aspect.

It's not that complex. Would it be better to benchmark with a larger player pool or a smaller player pool?