ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

[Anonymous]

I'm lost on exactly what is being argued here anymore. Doesn't everyone agree:

1. We're moving to SY soon, like it or not.
2. RAE affects our kids and we need solutions
3. Change is going to be disruptive for all but we'll live
4. USSF has tripped all over themselves to nobodys surprise.

So what is the debate? Date cutoffs? Fair. Least disruptive way to change? Fair. Ideas to reduce RAE, fair. Anything else? I'm getting lost in the noise.

[Anonymous]

Confirmed ✅

[Anonymous]

Yes. Change in 26/27. Nothing before that.

[Anonymous]

With the last ECNL podcast being so vague on the future, which until they address what there plans are through US club in the coming weeks. Thoughts on if ECNL changes ANYTHING going into fall of 25?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm lost on exactly what is being argued here anymore. Doesn't everyone agree:

1. We're moving to SY soon, like it or not.
2. RAE affects our kids and we need solutions
3. Change is going to be disruptive for all but we'll live
4. USSF has tripped all over themselves to nobodys surprise.

So what is the debate? Date cutoffs? Fair. Least disruptive way to change? Fair. Ideas to reduce RAE, fair. Anything else? I'm getting lost in the noise.

If everyone thought this way this thread would have need dead at 10 pages.

Get back in your room and log off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm lost on exactly what is being argued here anymore. Doesn't everyone agree:

1. We're moving to SY soon, like it or not.
2. RAE affects our kids and we need solutions
3. Change is going to be disruptive for all but we'll live
4. USSF has tripped all over themselves to nobodys surprise.

So what is the debate? Date cutoffs? Fair. Least disruptive way to change? Fair. Ideas to reduce RAE, fair. Anything else? I'm getting lost in the noise.

Maybe you + the groupthink came up with that.

It's not reality though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

And maybe the moon landing wasn't real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm lost on exactly what is being argued here anymore. Doesn't everyone agree:

1. We're moving to SY soon, like it or not.
2. RAE affects our kids and we need solutions
3. Change is going to be disruptive for all but we'll live
4. USSF has tripped all over themselves to nobodys surprise.

So what is the debate? Date cutoffs? Fair. Least disruptive way to change? Fair. Ideas to reduce RAE, fair. Anything else? I'm getting lost in the noise.

Maybe you + the groupthink came up with that.

It's not reality though.

The reality is you show your own stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

And maybe the moon landing wasn't real.

Just look at the chart. You clearly don’t have reading comprehension. It’s not hard to figure out. It’s right there on both links.

I’ll give you two hints. First, go back to what was originally said about college not being age cut-off based.

Second, the claim that it represents the age distribution of college soccer players is false, but is also partially true.

[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:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

And maybe the moon landing wasn't real.

Just look at the chart. You clearly don’t have reading comprehension. It’s not hard to figure out. It’s right there on both links.

I’ll give you two hints. First, go back to what was originally said about college not being age cut-off based.

Second, the claim that it represents the age distribution of college soccer players is false, but is also partially true.

I hate to say it but you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. Any info. to show that age month distributions are relatively equal? With your belligerence we might hit 500 real soon.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

Ran out of words to disagree I see.

Nope. But the ignorant opinions on display proudly waived around as truths and facts are better described as being a clown. It’s pointless trying to add information in a discussion when the other person is trotting out counter factuals and illogic as if they burped out next prime number.

I am sorry if your vision of the world isn't accurate, no reason to get angry at the messenger who is helping you have clarity on a subject.

You don't have to believe me that college sports have continuation of RAE from youth sports. The NCAA says so, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx.

The age cutoffs for specific youth sports impacts who has an opportunity to play sports in college.

Note that when the report was put out youth soccer was under school year.

Interesting to see that dates used to create youth age groups have more of an impact for boys than girls in college sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

And maybe the moon landing wasn't real.

Correct. It was made in a Hollywood basement. Nixon calling on a landline to speak to the moon but in 2024 the 5G is still spotty lmao

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Link got clipped, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx

Congratulations, you actually proved my point with an old synopsis of RAE and age-cutoffs, but it seems you’re too blinded by your opinion to read the footnotes.

Ok, you didn't make it clear that you understood that youth age cutoffs had an impact on the month distribution of college athletes.

Still missing the point. Go back, re-read what I said. That data isn’t what you think it is, or show what you think it shows.

College soccer is more like the Pros or HS than a club team.

It isn't the birth month distribution of college soccer players? Do tell.

No, it’s not that. I get why you think it may be, but if you look closely, you’ll see it isn’t, and maybe you’ll see my point.

You outsmarted yourself. It didn't need to be that way.

🤷‍♂️ if I explain it you dig in. So I waste my time.

If you find it yourself, maybe you’ll understand.

Or…you could just refuse to figure it out and we have status quo, which is like you digging in.

Only one of these results in my putting out useless effort.

So youth age cutoffs impact who plays sports in college and this knowledge isn't new.

Maybe. But you can’t base that conclusion on those charts.

And maybe the moon landing wasn't real.

Just look at the chart. You clearly don’t have reading comprehension. It’s not hard to figure out. It’s right there on both links.

I’ll give you two hints. First, go back to what was originally said about college not being age cut-off based.

Second, the claim that it represents the age distribution of college soccer players is false, but is also partially true.

I hate to say it but you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. Any info. to show that age month distributions are relatively equal? With your belligerence we might hit 500 real soon.

If I’m so daft, please tell me what I’m trying to show you that you think you’ve figured out?

I promise you you haven’t, because your comment of my “not being as clever as I think I am” shows that yours just not very good at reading a chart.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

Ran out of words to disagree I see.

Nope. But the ignorant opinions on display proudly waived around as truths and facts are better described as being a clown. It’s pointless trying to add information in a discussion when the other person is trotting out counter factuals and illogic as if they burped out next prime number.

I am sorry if your vision of the world isn't accurate, no reason to get angry at the messenger who is helping you have clarity on a subject.

You don't have to believe me that college sports have continuation of RAE from youth sports. The NCAA says so, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx.

The age cutoffs for specific youth sports impacts who has an opportunity to play sports in college.

Note that when the report was put out youth soccer was under school year.

Interesting to see that dates used to create youth age groups have more of an impact for boys than girls in college sports.

Good point. The distribution on these charts for girls follow normal birth month distribution (as they still do today). That has to do with girls having an early puberty.

But that’s not why these charts can’t say what the PP is saying they say.

Youth sport is don’t by age groups, college is done by admission. These charts don’t show birth month distribution of all d1 college athletes (or soccer players) during the measured time. They show something close, but different. And the distinction is important