ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

I like the idea of clubs have two separate teams divided by 6 months. Jan to June and July to December. Allows more kids to develop with not as much size and age difference.
Also allows kids July to December to play “up” with kids if their grouping is not competitive enough. At the high school ages put them back together.

[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

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

[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.

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!?

So you want to cheat? Join MLSN and do biobanding to play f**king down.

[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.

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!?

So you want to cheat? Join MLSN and do biobanding to play f**king down.

These are the times we live in. Can you imagine what this guy's son endures?

[Anonymous]

Does this have any implications for EDP? We're new to all of this and I have no idea how leagues work together and/or influence each other.

[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.

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!?

So you want to cheat? Join MLSN and do biobanding to play f**king down.

I dont understand how GY is cheating? Yes I see how some parents holding kids back could be a frowned upon but if everyone can do it then it’s not cheating.
Also I don’t know a single girl who’s been held back. I don’t think girls get held back or start late very often if anything they start kindergarten early.

Boys I could see it being abused but parents don’t really have to because of biobanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does this have any implications for EDP? We're new to all of this and I have no idea how leagues work together and/or influence each other.

Maybe...probably.

The main leagues said they want to move in concert (including EDP) and there are hints that they lean towards switching to school dates. Details on exact dates to be chosen to develop cutoffs, a date to be implemented, exactly how it be implemented and if anything actually changes are all TBD by the leagues themselves down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[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.

Maybe….orrrrr…they might have no announcement to make. You are aware that the majority of clubs in ECNL were blindsided by this right?

[Anonymous]

The rumor around town is ECNL is going to allow the middle school ages some extra flexibility next fall. With full implementation y Fall 26. US Club will also offer flexibility for next year’s trapped players while teammates are playing high school. Sounds like tournament will be advised to all trapped players to participate as well.

Sounds like the podcast will start to address this with additional details to come from us club in early to late January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rumor around town is ECNL is going to allow the middle school ages some extra flexibility next fall. With full implementation y Fall 26. US Club will also offer flexibility for next year’s trapped players while teammates are playing high school. Sounds like tournament will be advised to all trapped players to participate as well.

Sounds like the podcast will start to address this with additional details to come from us club in early to late January.

If you believe rumors…. Which obviously I do.

[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.

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

This is the dopey thinking that gets you psyched up about an age cutoff change.

Watch me make a meaningless statement too, then pretend it is a profound epiphany:

Many kids work hard, many do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

What does grade peers have to do with anything?

Isn’t this the same crew that is touting “you can always play up?”

Can the pro SY crowd please pick an point of view that is logically consistent?

[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.

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.

1) it’s not “fixable” but i can’t be addressed and minimized. It is what it is.

2) everyone likes to complain about USSF, rightfully so, but it’s actually one of the weakest national federations. The reason nothing gets fixed is because of USSFs weakness, it’s governed by the prevailing winds of ever changing opinion and volume.

3) SY or BY, doesn’t matter. But picking a standard and sticking to it is pretty basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

US Soccer disagrees with you, said they are not forcing birth year registrations anymore to have more players and more fun, "U.S. Soccer members want more kids to experience the joy of soccer — and to offer the optimal opportunity for each player’s desired development."