ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

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.

Maybe someone should tell you that bad player in BY is bad player in SY

So the bad November player doesn't become a star player with a SY change

Bad players don't get on top teams. It's all a matter of degree and especially at younger age groups with time and attention where even size can factor in. I've seen clubs move down smaller-sized players -- even when they had the most skill and scored all the goals while on the A team -- to the B team.

Is this sarcasm too?

[Anonymous]

Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

Had zero impact on NT and wasn't meant/expected to have an impact. Very well could have had an impact on YNT because the are now older players in each age group on average.

Yes, it's a lot harder to connect the dots from BY to a stronger senior NT. But, the YNT (esp boys) finishes at international tournaments have been better. That's probably the easiest benefit to see, and the one that is most speculated as the primary reason we switched to BY. The question is: what does this really do for soccer in this country if those finishes are a little better? People care about the senior national team, our pro league, and sending players to European leagues for big money. If you aren't helping those things, the millions of kids in youth soccer at lower levels shouldn't be saddled with a poor system just for the YNTs. Their finishes aren't well known or a source of national pride. At the highest level, this is like parents getting jazzed about a tournament trophy in U9 because they kick and ran instead of focusing on long term development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

Had zero impact on NT and wasn't meant/expected to have an impact. Very well could have had an impact on YNT because the are now older players in each age group on average.

Not true about NT…but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

[Anonymous]

Just got off work. Proud to see several new pages here. You're doing me proud folks, keep up the great work and we'll be past 600 by Xmas. We've successfully recycled the arguments back to SY vs BY and if it even matters. Same old arguments and BY holding onto hope for a long delay. Good stuff team, let's keep it goin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

Does it? Or does it speak to our lack of talent ID?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

September 15th Birthday kid.... Ends up in a league that uses September 1. Not shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

September 15th Birthday kid.... Ends up in a league that uses September 1. Not shocking.

I found an interview with Christian's father, who says that he was always the smallest player and that he was playing up against much larger opponents. It made him a better player, that is no surprise. We should be able to identify these kids and make them apart of our national teams.

[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.

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.

Maybe someone should tell you that bad player in BY is bad player in SY

So the bad November player doesn't become a star player with a SY change

Your hyperbole seems to have clouded your senses here. Give or take the actual new cutoff by a month or so, Q1/2 gets relatively worse and Q3/4 gets relatively better. Those that disagree don't understand the meaning of the word relatively.

You mean younger and older.
Not better and worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

Just look at the careers or lack there of for pro draftees to realize that coaches, clubs, scouts lack E.S.P. So PP is clearly being funny, and it worked, good on them.

ESP or not, they still pick currently exceptional players over everyone else, every time.

Ok, wow, was serious, my bad. Tough to argue coaches are perfect but you do you.

You just think your kid is exceptional and was overlooked.

Other parents, players, opponents and coaches don't agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

Had zero impact on NT and wasn't meant/expected to have an impact. Very well could have had an impact on YNT because the are now older players in each age group on average.

Not true about NT…but ok.

NT mostly older players who were too old for change to BY to matter. Switch to BY just makes the NT pick slightly different players (the older ones in an age cohort) but doesn't make the team better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

Just look at the careers or lack there of for pro draftees to realize that coaches, clubs, scouts lack E.S.P. So PP is clearly being funny, and it worked, good on them.

ESP or not, they still pick currently exceptional players over everyone else, every time.

Ok, wow, was serious, my bad. Tough to argue coaches are perfect but you do you.

You just think your kid is exceptional and was overlooked.

Other parents, players, opponents and coaches don't agree with you.

Nope, I just understand how RAE works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

Had zero impact on NT and wasn't meant/expected to have an impact. Very well could have had an impact on YNT because the are now older players in each age group on average.

Not true about NT…but ok.

NT mostly older players who were too old for change to BY to matter. Switch to BY just makes the NT pick slightly different players (the older ones in an age cohort) but doesn't make the team better.

This is the obvious answer for the senior NT. To say otherwise, like PP, requires an explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

The Klinsman view is basically the view of 99% of the world including most talent developers in the US. 😂

Also, the pathway to the NT you outline is not indirect at all. It’s fairly direct. It’s just not well trodden from the the US to Europe. And UEFA+FIFA have put up some fairly particular obstacles to non-Europe (sans Africa) leveraging the European training ground to better their non-European bench.

A better inroad for the US would be to look South to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Columbia - but the “common tongue” of the UK and often much of non-Latin Europe is too attractive for Americans.