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: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.

DING DING DING!!!! Some kids have never played a game vs a younger kid!

[Anonymous]

The only real question is when will mlsnext switch to August 1? My guess is that they too will switch as it is not worth the risk of losing players. Everyone goes to August 1, then the relative league ranking can remain the same.

[Anonymous]

Having the majority of kids play outside of the GY was a huge mistake. 5 months of kids have never played with their piers from school. While half of kids have only played with kids from a younger grade. I'm really glad this will be fixed for future generations.

Good riddence BY.

[Anonymous]

There's a mistake conflating current parent desires and the motivations of the governing bodies. Parents don't care about participation etc. they care about securing an advantage for their child (un-trapping or preserving/ganing rae advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a mistake conflating current parent desires and the motivations of the governing bodies. Parents don't care about participation etc. they care about securing an advantage for their child (un-trapping or preserving/ganing rae advantage.

[/quote

Very true, Ive seen some of the most spiteful behavior from Karens trying to convinve anyone who would listen that players trying out were bad players when the eye test clearly showed otherwise. Its all about keeping there childs revalvance. Don't discount the level some parents will sink to..... Its pretty sick stuff.

[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

This toxic attitude is why soccer participation suffers, not so much whether a league is BY vs. 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:

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.

Yes, ECNL doesn't worry about RAE. That's why it focuses more on recruiting than player development.

[Anonymous]

What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

[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: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.

Yes, ECNL doesn't worry about RAE. That's why it focuses more on recruiting than player development.

RAE is like the weather, everybody complains about it but nobody fixes it.

[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: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.

At what level are you talking about? Not on the most competitive ECNL teams certainly — these players all (all quarters on the team) play with and scrimmage against other ECNL players 1-2 years older than them. Coaches do not encourage playing down as there is no development happening then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

[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: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.

At what level are you talking about? Not on the most competitive ECNL teams certainly — these players all (all quarters on the team) play with and scrimmage against other ECNL players 1-2 years older than them. Coaches do not encourage playing down as there is no development happening then.

You are sharp enough to realize that if one group is playing up, the other group is playing down and the coach set it up, they are encouraging it, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This toxic attitude is why soccer participation suffers, not so much whether a league is BY vs. SY.

No has nothing to do with either BY or SY.

People like you think you can snowplow your kid into a position on XYZ team and you pave the way with $$$ and nonstop complaints to club leadership.

As your kid gets older they will be filtered out. Most likely this will happen when they're forced to swim on their own.

[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: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.

At what level are you talking about? Not on the most competitive ECNL teams certainly — these players all (all quarters on the team) play with and scrimmage against other ECNL players 1-2 years older than them. Coaches do not encourage playing down as there is no development happening then.

You are sharp enough to realize that if one group is playing up, the other group is playing down and the coach set it up, they are encouraging it, right?

Ha! I see why you misunderstood - it wasn’t explained well. Sorry. The point is that all these teams are given opportunities regularly to play against the older age teams kids where the focus is on the younger team having the stronger competition. Also, it’s not always the case that the older team wins especially with teams that are regionally or nationally ranked.

[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: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.

Yes, ECNL doesn't worry about RAE. That's why it focuses more on recruiting than player development.

Does this mean we will get Grad Year for ECNL!?