ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are an excuse machine.

[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 shift is the worry of the losers, the hope of the winners and confusion for RAE deniers/stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nice we get to find out for real rather than continue to listen someone's ignorant now it all dad.

Let the great BY v SY debate end and let the SY experiment begin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not. No coach has singular control to roster a kid. A parent has final decision-making power on whether to present a kid to a club or put him in an environment where he/she doesn't belong. Coaches can solicit kids, they cannot kidnap them. There will always be bad actors in sports. Good parenting is the guardrail against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not. No coach has singular control to roster a kid. A parent has final decision-making power on whether to present a kid to a club or put him in an environment where he/she doesn't belong. Coaches can solicit kids, they cannot kidnap them. There will always be bad actors in sports. Good parenting is the guardrail against it.

Huh? Coaches/clubs pick the players for their teams and try to get as many players as possible for their club. So 2 sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous]

I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not. No coach has singular control to roster a kid. A parent has final decision-making power on whether to present a kid to a club or put him in an environment where he/she doesn't belong. Coaches can solicit kids, they cannot kidnap them. There will always be bad actors in sports. Good parenting is the guardrail against it.

Huh? Coaches/clubs pick the players for their teams and try to get as many players as possible for their club. So 2 sides of the same coin.

As previously stated, nobody said coaches are blameless. There is a lack of focus on development. Coaches do it for the trophies to advance their careers. What are parents doing it for? The only thing I see is ego. Parents can place their kids in a system that cares less about trophies and more about their kid. No coach can make you join their club. There are coaches out there who care about both. There are also some who care about only winning or only development. Surely we can all agree a balance of these two is important. Looking at standings and deciding whether a club is good for your kid or not is an amateur approach. That's the main point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are an excuse machine.

No, the post is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

If your kid gets sent to a B team, please consider their feelings before you disparage it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it's not. No coach has singular control to roster a kid. A parent has final decision-making power on whether to present a kid to a club or put him in an environment where he/she doesn't belong. Coaches can solicit kids, they cannot kidnap them. There will always be bad actors in sports. Good parenting is the guardrail against it.

Huh? Coaches/clubs pick the players for their teams and try to get as many players as possible for their club. So 2 sides of the same coin.

As previously stated, nobody said coaches are blameless. There is a lack of focus on development. Coaches do it for the trophies to advance their careers. What are parents doing it for? The only thing I see is ego. Parents can place their kids in a system that cares less about trophies and more about their kid. No coach can make you join their club. There are coaches out there who care about both. There are also some who care about only winning or only development. Surely we can all agree a balance of these two is important. Looking at standings and deciding whether a club is good for your kid or not is an amateur approach. That's the main point.

I would agree if I was familiar with such a system around the DMV. Don't blame the player, blame the game. Parents don't set the rules.

[Anonymous]

Hillarious.... Karen take some Xanex now!

WE HAVE TWO ISSUES:
TRAPPED PLAYERS
&
RAE
ONLY ONE CAN BE FIXED;

T.R.A.P.P.E.D.P.L.A.Y.E.R.S.

On a side note.... This is already decided. SY is now King. 14 months go fast and we will see movment long before tryouts.

Enjoy the ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillarious.... Karen take some Xanex now!

WE HAVE TWO ISSUES:
TRAPPED PLAYERS
&
RAE
ONLY ONE CAN BE FIXED;

T.R.A.P.P.E.D.P.L.A.Y.E.R.S.

On a side note.... This is already decided. SY is now King. 14 months go fast and we will see movment long before tryouts.

Enjoy the ride.

There is a high chance that ECNL is planning some changes before that. Otherwise, they will make a release. They have held their plan for too long.

[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.

If getting on the #1 (or best) ECNL teams is the goal then simply being content to play ‘at age or grade’ or even standing out among younger players is not going to cut it. Top ECNL teams and players train and scrimmage regularly against teams 1-2 years older than them. None of these players compete just at their age or grade - they have to be competitive with older and stronger players on a regular basis in order stand out in their own age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillarious.... Karen take some Xanex now!

WE HAVE TWO ISSUES:
TRAPPED PLAYERS
&
RAE
ONLY ONE CAN BE FIXED;

T.R.A.P.P.E.D.P.L.A.Y.E.R.S.

On a side note.... This is already decided. SY is now King. 14 months go fast and we will see movment long before tryouts.

Enjoy the ride.

There is a high chance that ECNL is planning some changes before that. Otherwise, they will make a release. They have held their plan for too long.

I completely agree. When we are 6 months out I expect a full scale change. Thats really the latest they can afford to wait.

[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.

If getting on the #1 (or best) ECNL teams is the goal then simply being content to play ‘at age or grade’ or even standing out among younger players is not going to cut it. Top ECNL teams and players train and scrimmage regularly against teams 1-2 years older than them. None of these players compete just at their age or grade - they have to be competitive with older and stronger players on a regular basis in order stand out in their own age group.

Many of the Q4 do this day in and day out and many Q1/2 do not based on the age cutoffs. Gonna be a fun ride to school year.