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:

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.”

A switch to SY (or even a switch to both SY and some staying BY) will increase the chances that Q3/4 players get to play college soccer and decrease the chances for Q1/2 because of the shifting effects of RAE for players based on their birth month.

No…it doesn’t. You’re mistaking chance / probability for distribution.

It’s the same mistake the kooky SY warriors are making about their individual circumstances.

Yes, college soccer players and the other sports, being more likely to be born in months where they were older competitors when they were younger was completely based on complete chance. RAE exists even if you don't want it to be.

Huh? You’re responding to a different question to make the point you want to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

[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:

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.”

A switch to SY (or even a switch to both SY and some staying BY) will increase the chances that Q3/4 players get to play college soccer and decrease the chances for Q1/2 because of the shifting effects of RAE for players based on their birth month.

No…it doesn’t. You’re mistaking chance / probability for distribution.

It’s the same mistake the kooky SY warriors are making about their individual circumstances.

Yes, college soccer players and the other sports, being more likely to be born in months where they were older competitors when they were younger was completely based on complete chance. RAE exists even if you don't want it to be.

Huh? You’re responding to a different question to make the point you want to make.

The discussion is on whether RAE at the youth level impacts who gets to play in college and whether a switch to school year changes who plays in college.

It started as either from rising fear among some Q1/2 parents about their kids about to be knocked off the college path (a denial stage) or from coaches/clubs about to be exposed for merely picking the oldest players in an age group and having to demote them (an anger stage).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

[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:

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.”

A switch to SY (or even a switch to both SY and some staying BY) will increase the chances that Q3/4 players get to play college soccer and decrease the chances for Q1/2 because of the shifting effects of RAE for players based on their birth month.

No…it doesn’t. You’re mistaking chance / probability for distribution.

It’s the same mistake the kooky SY warriors are making about their individual circumstances.

Yes, college soccer players and the other sports, being more likely to be born in months where they were older competitors when they were younger was completely based on complete chance. RAE exists even if you don't want it to be.

Huh? You’re responding to a different question to make the point you want to make.

The discussion is on whether RAE at the youth level impacts who gets to play in college and whether a switch to school year changes who plays in college.

It started as either from rising fear among some Q1/2 parents about their kids about to be knocked off the college path (a denial stage) or from coaches/clubs about to be exposed for merely picking the oldest players in an age group and having to demote them (an anger stage).

Yea, that’s a different wrinkle, like I said.

Just post your thought on its own instead of tying it to a thread that is on a different tangent.

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

My dude…the title of that report agrees with me. 😂

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

My dude…the title of that report agrees with me. 😂

SY wins!

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

Right, it is the effect on motivation that matters.

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

Right, it is the effect on motivation that matters.

🤦‍♂️ just a kite in the hurricane of life…they have no agency, it’s always something or someone else’s fault. Can’t be tha the kids just don’t like the sport for one reason or another.

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

Right, it is the effect on motivation that matters.

🤦‍♂️ just a kite in the hurricane of life…they have no agency, it’s always something or someone else’s fault. Can’t be tha the kids just don’t like the sport for one reason or another.

Well, yeah, kids don't like sports when they tend not to be very good which is more likely if they are younger than their peers/competition.

Genetics are some else's fault, rules are made by people. And rules can change.

[Anonymous]

RAE is the same under BY and SY.

All you're doing is shifting the most affected from Dec birthdays to July birthdays.

What are people bringing up RAE when discussing BY or 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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

Right, it is the effect on motivation that matters.

🤦‍♂️ just a kite in the hurricane of life…they have no agency, it’s always something or someone else’s fault. Can’t be tha the kids just don’t like the sport for one reason or another.

Well, yeah, kids don't like sports when they tend not to be very good which is more likely if they are younger than their peers/competition.

Genetics are some else's fault, rules are made by people. And rules can change.

Give up on the person you're argueing with. They're keyed into every excuse possible and believe everyone and everything should be completely even.

Give it a couple of years and their kid will kid and they'll go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RAE is the same under BY and SY.

All you're doing is shifting the most affected from Dec birthdays to July birthdays.

What are people bringing up RAE when discussing BY or SY?

Because the change back is really just about RAE, not participation or fun.

You see all the people coming back and arguing about participation. And then all the post above lay bare that they don’t actually care about those things, they care about the RAE window aligning best for them.

See the above discussion on RAE being a “cause” of quitting…now how do you square that with their desire to move the window? They give zero squat about participation, that’s how you square it…

Granted, they also don’t understand RAE, and think it’s pixie dust sprinkled on their children if they’re born in the right month and is only size…but that misconception isn’t helpful to disabuse.

[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: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.

Ironically, USSF said RAE would be better addressed with the change to birth year 8 years ago and of course it wasn't. This was discussed on an ECNL podcast.

But if the leagues have the choice of birth year and school year and different ones get picked, it can create a possibility for RAE to be reduced as kids can pick the one that suits their situation.

Ok, but nobody cares but you.

After u14 RAE doesn't matter.

Are you trying to guess that additional RAE does not occur after age 13 or are you trying to guess that RAE from previous years wears off like it never happened and goes away forever?

Yes, I'm saying that after u14 everyone has to grow up and RAE no longer matters.

Either you're in it to win at u14 or you don't matter.

Sorry to be the one that breaks the truth to you.

So your saying the kids that left soccer in the prior years because they were on the younger side of the age group come back to playing soccer? Seems far fetched.

Nobody leaves soccer because they’re ok the younger side.

They leave because it’s not fun, or it’s too hard, or their parents / coach are awful despite their having fun. They don’t leave because they’re a few months younger than another kid.

And the ages in which the majority of kids quit are before soccer gets serious. The vast vast majority of youth soccer players play grassroots / rec level. Don’t get stuck thinking the ECNL / GA / MLSN bubble is all of soccer.

Ok, maybe it is more accurate to say the sport quit on the younger players in an age group rather than the other way around. And coaches quiting on younger players by picking older players is reinforcing RAE.

You understand that RAE is an individual effect, relative to the group. It’s not a blanket, nor a cause.

No kid quits soccer “because of RAE.”

And about 95-98% of soccer players play grassroots, where RAE isn’t coming into factor on individual outcomes through ID, team formation and coaching decisions.

The definition of RAE and research disagrees with you, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273229700905161?via%3Dihub

RAE is not a motivation. It’s an effect. You all are excuse hunting.

Right, it is the effect on motivation that matters.

🤦‍♂️ just a kite in the hurricane of life…they have no agency, it’s always something or someone else’s fault. Can’t be tha the kids just don’t like the sport for one reason or another.

Well, yeah, kids don't like sports when they tend not to be very good which is more likely if they are younger than their peers/competition.

Genetics are some else's fault, rules are made by people. And rules can change.

Give up on the person you're argueing with. They're keyed into every excuse possible and believe everyone and everything should be completely even.

Give it a couple of years and their kid will kid and they'll go away.

You’ve got that reversed. But go on.