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:

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

Although the data is old, for soccer it is nice to quantify what most already thought here, being on the older side of the age cutoff increases your chances to play in college, to the tune of about 25% for Q4 kids going from BY to SY.

[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:

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

Although the data is old, for soccer it is nice to quantify what most already thought here, being on the older side of the age cutoff increases your chances to play in college, to the tune of about 25% for Q4 kids going from BY to SY.

Unless a mix of BY and SY elite leagues emerge

[Anonymous]

Given the talk here, parents of Q1/Q2 players should form an association like yesterday to help either convince a top league to stay BY OR encourage the formation of a new one.

[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:

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

Although the data is old, for soccer it is nice to quantify what most already thought here, being on the older side of the age cutoff increases your chances to play in college, to the tune of about 25% for Q4 kids going from BY to SY.

Unless a mix of BY and SY elite leagues emerge

Great point, great outcome.

[Anonymous]

This thread should be a solid indication of what is a major hurdle for youth soccer in America. The parents. So few really care about what's in the best interest of their kid. They want the trophies, patches, and team assignment for their own egos to live out fantasies through their kids and brag about it. While the coaches are not completely blameless, if the parents were removed from the equation and coaches were not pressured by their bosses and paying parents to win or lose your job...we could have kids assigned to teams based upon their physical maturity and skill level.
My kid has played in several European countries during the breaks. Most of them group kids in two year age blocks and allow for kids to play down a year if it best suits their small stature or development. Parents stay largely out of the way.
We're a bunch of helicoptering maniacs, and we - yes, including myself - are a big part of the problem.

[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:

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

Although the data is old, for soccer it is nice to quantify what most already thought here, being on the older side of the age cutoff increases your chances to play in college, to the tune of about 25% for Q4 kids going from BY to SY.

It doesn’t show that. It has nothing to do with “increasing chances.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the talk here, parents of Q1/Q2 players should form an association like yesterday to help either convince a top league to stay BY OR encourage the formation of a new one.

The age cutoffs don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be a solid indication of what is a major hurdle for youth soccer in America. The parents. So few really care about what's in the best interest of their kid. They want the trophies, patches, and team assignment for their own egos to live out fantasies through their kids and brag about it. While the coaches are not completely blameless, if the parents were removed from the equation and coaches were not pressured by their bosses and paying parents to win or lose your job...we could have kids assigned to teams based upon their physical maturity and skill level.
My kid has played in several European countries during the breaks. Most of them group kids in two year age blocks and allow for kids to play down a year if it best suits their small stature or development. Parents stay largely out of the way.
We're a bunch of helicoptering maniacs, and we - yes, including myself - are a big part of the problem.

100%

Team chasing is a huge issue, and the mindset it creates in the home environment ruins, RUINS, athletic futures of this kids in that household.

[Anonymous]

RAE is the same under BY as it is under SY.

Under BY birthdays close to and in December are most affected.

Under SY birthdays close to and in July are most affected.

Don't let the SY cultists convince you that RAE is somehow changed with SY it is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be a solid indication of what is a major hurdle for youth soccer in America. The parents. So few really care about what's in the best interest of their kid. They want the trophies, patches, and team assignment for their own egos to live out fantasies through their kids and brag about it. While the coaches are not completely blameless, if the parents were removed from the equation and coaches were not pressured by their bosses and paying parents to win or lose your job...we could have kids assigned to teams based upon their physical maturity and skill level.
My kid has played in several European countries during the breaks. Most of them group kids in two year age blocks and allow for kids to play down a year if it best suits their small stature or development. Parents stay largely out of the way.
We're a bunch of helicoptering maniacs, and we - yes, including myself - are a big part of the problem.

100%

Team chasing is a huge issue, and the mindset it creates in the home environment ruins, RUINS, athletic futures of this kids in that household.

As long as parents are the ones paying for everything. Parents and kids will always hop teams because they can.
Why stay on a “worse” team if your kid is good and you can buy their way onto a new team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAE is the same under BY as it is under SY.

Under BY birthdays close to and in December are most affected.

Under SY birthdays close to and in July are most affected.

Don't let the SY cultists convince you that RAE is somehow changed with SY it is not.

Thank you, I was wondering about this. It didn't make sense that RAE was somehow addressed with SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE is the same under BY as it is under SY.

Under BY birthdays close to and in December are most affected.

Under SY birthdays close to and in July are most affected.

Don't let the SY cultists convince you that RAE is somehow changed with SY it is not.

Thank you, I was wondering about this. It didn't make sense that RAE was somehow addressed with SY.

No problem, the SY parents are trying to spin RAE into something that it is not. RAE under BY is exactly the same as under SY if the eligibility window (365 days) is the same. The player affected are just shifted by 6 months from Dec to July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE is the same under BY as it is under SY.

Under BY birthdays close to and in December are most affected.

Under SY birthdays close to and in July are most affected.

Don't let the SY cultists convince you that RAE is somehow changed with SY it is not.

Thank you, I was wondering about this. It didn't make sense that RAE was somehow addressed with SY.

No problem, the SY parents are trying to spin RAE into something that it is not. RAE under BY is exactly the same as under SY if the eligibility window (365 days) is the same. The player affected are just shifted by 6 months from Dec to July.

By exact same do you mean same level in total or effects are the same for each player?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the talk here, parents of Q1/Q2 players should form an association like yesterday to help either convince a top league to stay BY OR encourage the formation of a new one.

The age cutoffs don’t matter.

Wish you weren't so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread should be a solid indication of what is a major hurdle for youth soccer in America. The parents. So few really care about what's in the best interest of their kid. They want the trophies, patches, and team assignment for their own egos to live out fantasies through their kids and brag about it. While the coaches are not completely blameless, if the parents were removed from the equation and coaches were not pressured by their bosses and paying parents to win or lose your job...we could have kids assigned to teams based upon their physical maturity and skill level.
My kid has played in several European countries during the breaks. Most of them group kids in two year age blocks and allow for kids to play down a year if it best suits their small stature or development. Parents stay largely out of the way.
We're a bunch of helicoptering maniacs, and we - yes, including myself - are a big part of the problem.

100%

Team chasing is a huge issue, and the mindset it creates in the home environment ruins, RUINS, athletic futures of this kids in that household.

You do know that team chasing and coaches poaching is the same thing, right?