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:

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.

But wait! The immutable law of RAE says that’s impossible! Only the team with older kids wins! You must be lying!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you going to start a thread to complain about club fees, coaching carousels, uniform costs, and figuring out how to harass the club to little jonny and Janey to whichever of the 2 teams seems to be doing better this month?

[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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

[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.

So…basically what most solid clubs are already doing for the 8th graders?

I swear it’s like none of these posters have kids in ECNL and it’s just a whole bunch of NPL parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Your post isn’t responsive to the thread you’re tagging onto.

I’m also not sure how US Soccers above desire is any different from a year ago or 10 years ago. It’s a platitude, not some research backed conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

[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: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.

But wait! The immutable law of RAE says that’s impossible! Only the team with older kids wins! You must be lying!!!

Lol! Right?! It’s very apparent that lots of people on here are clueless about what competitive ECNL teams are about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Your post isn’t responsive to the thread you’re tagging onto.

I’m also not sure how US Soccers above desire is any different from a year ago or 10 years ago. It’s a platitude, not some research backed conclusion.

How is it not responsive to "Because the change back is really just about RAE, not participation or fun."? You may consider the comment a platitude but it is presented as member feedback for goals which birth year blocks, not research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So…basically what most solid clubs are already doing for the 8th graders?

I swear it’s like none of these posters have kids in ECNL and it’s just a whole bunch of NPL parents.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

And yet you are very disgruntled with the change. Seems inconsistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Your post isn’t responsive to the thread you’re tagging onto.

I’m also not sure how US Soccers above desire is any different from a year ago or 10 years ago. It’s a platitude, not some research backed conclusion.

How is it not responsive to "Because the change back is really just about RAE, not participation or fun."? You may consider the comment a platitude but it is presented as member feedback for goals which birth year blocks, not research.

Please explain how a generic platitude US Soccer has had as its youth mission for decades is “presented as member feedback for goals which birth year blocks.”

I think you’re projecting you opinion into the statement.

That said, I see how you think it is responsive to the thread. I stand corrected on that front. Appreciate the clarity, thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

And yet you are very disgruntled with the change. Seems inconsistent.

What? You’re reading way too much into things. Just because I challenge your point of view, or challenge your self interest in the outcome, doesn’t mean I am disgruntled with the change. You seem incapable of seeing anything contrary to your point of view as anything but “pro BY” or “anti Q3/4.” That strikes me as fairly narrow minded - almost like it’s totally emotional for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

I don't believe in your shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

I think you just agreed with me? I said the Q1/2 “studs” as you call them actually prefer the change because they are getting better competition against older girls. Parents of Q3/4 studs only say to you people what a bummer it is they are changing things because if their kid was a real stud they would just stay and play up anyways so it wouldn’t affect them. Ultimately they want to watch their kid go play and have a stronger just of being recruited because they would show better against they are used to a bigger, faster, more skilled game.