ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

It was the other podcast mentioned, Pitch something maybe, not the ECNL podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

Was not on the ECNL podcast was another podcast with two current soccer directors and coaches. One was a former college coach as well.

The reason we went to BY had everything to do with making sure our best youth players were Jan to May because RAE is real and the best players and players that benefit the most statistically are always the oldest.

We were at a “disadvantage” because when we were school year our best players were Aug to December kids.

Which if you’re a real BY fan you can’t agree with that logic because then your whole argument about Aug to Dec kids needing to work harder and just aren’t as good of players falls apart.

[Anonymous]

Exactly that means either RAE is real and which ever kids get the age benefit doesn’t mean they are actually better they are just better writhing the group they are put.

Or

Before we switched January to July kids just weren’t working as hard as they needed to be. Weird….. I guess this new crop of Jan to July kids just got a work ethic that’s unmatched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

Grad Year!!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

What many people keep missing -- perhaps because of their stress about their kid's situation -- is any RAE change is not individual but generational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

Was not on the ECNL podcast was another podcast with two current soccer directors and coaches. One was a former college coach as well.

The reason we went to BY had everything to do with making sure our best youth players were Jan to May because RAE is real and the best players and players that benefit the most statistically are always the oldest.

We were at a “disadvantage” because when we were school year our best players were Aug to December kids.

Which if you’re a real BY fan you can’t agree with that logic because then your whole argument about Aug to Dec kids needing to work harder and just aren’t as good of players falls apart.

Everything was spot on until this…just s-talking for no reason beyond some weird birth month animosity.

BY supporters I think are largely in the “international norms” “global benchmarking is
better for development” “we actually do have a soccer pyramid and the NTs are at the top of it” crowd.

Aug-Dec kids DO have to work harder. So do Jan- Aug kids. RAE is real…nobody is debating that. Seems you’ve got a weird hang up on trying to justify a perceived benefit being moved to Aug-Dec kids…and projecting it on random posters that mention the benefits BY has is not normal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

Grad Year!!?

Grad year is easily gamed. Parents holding home school kids back a year or two years to fit in a specific grad year boat. It would be difficult to enforce. I don't think its even a consideration because of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

Was not on the ECNL podcast was another podcast with two current soccer directors and coaches. One was a former college coach as well.

The reason we went to BY had everything to do with making sure our best youth players were Jan to May because RAE is real and the best players and players that benefit the most statistically are always the oldest.

We were at a “disadvantage” because when we were school year our best players were Aug to December kids.

Which if you’re a real BY fan you can’t agree with that logic because then your whole argument about Aug to Dec kids needing to work harder and just aren’t as good of players falls apart.

Everything was spot on until this…just s-talking for no reason beyond some weird birth month animosity.

BY supporters I think are largely in the “international norms” “global benchmarking is
better for development” “we actually do have a soccer pyramid and the NTs are at the top of it” crowd.

Aug-Dec kids DO have to work harder. So do Jan- Aug kids. RAE is real…nobody is debating that. Seems you’ve got a weird hang up on trying to justify a perceived benefit being moved to Aug-Dec kids…and projecting it on random posters that mention the benefits BY has is not normal

Those BY arguments are for reducing RAE so all birth months have as equal chance as possible of reaching their highest levels, not for picking BY over SY.

If RAE was not an issue, NTs would be able to pick from about twice as many players as they do now. That's how you actually improve the NTs 5 years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly that means either RAE is real and which ever kids get the age benefit doesn’t mean they are actually better they are just better writhing the group they are put.

Or

Before we switched January to July kids just weren’t working as hard as they needed to be. Weird….. I guess this new crop of Jan to July kids just got a work ethic that’s unmatched.

🤦‍♂️ does this logic make you feel justified in your position?

It’s not accurate.

It’s tantamount to saying:

It’s either RAE makes kids look better than they are…or…Jan to July kids look better than they are…

It’s just dumb and bigoted.

RAE is a man effect. The effect is at the individual level…different kids mature at different rates. But it (the effect) can be seen in athletic (and academic) populations clustered around older birth months when segmenting out groups based on 12 month ranges.

This isn’t hard! School testing has RAE too! Guess what? It’s based around school cutoffs. Do you see a whole bunch of July parents shouting from the rooftops about changing school cutoffs because their kids are disadvantaged? Nope…

And guess what else?! Like I said, it’s extremely individual in its accumulated advantage! You have an early bloomer that doesn’t practice…poof…no
accumulated advantage. You have a late bloomer that is in the older quartile of a group…poof…no accumulated advantage.

You all are fighting over the margins that look like advantages when you scale to populations, but on the individual level are imperceptible at best. All because you THINK / HOPE / FEAR that your kid is or isn’t getting the outcome they deserve. But it’s not controllable. You can’t control you kids rate of maturity (that’s not true, you can give them puberty blockers). And you sure as hell can’t control how coaches see them or the other players in their competitive pool.

And the twisted thing this has revealed is that there are a whole bunch of you that really do want to control your kids competitive pools through age cutoffs (either direction), celebrating perceived victories over opponents you feel are unjustly superior, or dooming perceived losses to opponents you feel belong below your kid…think about that. You’re trying (you think you’re trying…it’s out of your control) to make sure the competitive pool for your kid is easier. 100% loser mentality! And THAT is why your kid doesn’t have the outcome you want for them. Because the focus, effort, drive is around crap you don’t control and how unfair it is opposed to just going out and controlling the controllable, and teaching your kid to do hard work especially when it sucks.

I get it. DMV is filled with loser mentalities that somehow pay-off. Large swaths of our area get rewarded for doing next to nothing. I know numerous feds that work from home and don’t even have a laptop. And I know numerous consultants that love DC because they can work on the same project for 5 years and never have to win another engagement, travel or move - much less produce a deliverable.

But athletics ISN’T like that’s. If you can’t ball, if you don’t put in the work, there isn’t room for you at the top. Just because you want to be there, doesn’t get you there. This isn’t rocket science, but it is hard work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the goal is to align ECNL with college. it is easier and smoother when you go by school year. the elite kids will be elite no matter what and will make the national teams cause they are just that good. but for the rest of players, 99.9% of them, aligning with college and those opportunities is the most advantageous, especially for trapped players.

The elite thing is interesting.

Podcast mentioned pages ago pointed out that the main reason that BY was mandated was because at the time most of the youth national team "elite" players were born in Sep-Dec and US youth teams were young at international events and not doing well. The youth national teams needed the "elite" players to born in Jan-May.

Switching from SY to BY for most of the leagues will result in many different players making youth national teams then would have if most leagues were to stay BY.

That is ECNLs interpretation of the facts. It’s close to what USSF said, but off a bit.

Ironic that ECNL understands the why behind that aspect of BY…but just constantly waives it away because they don’t like that it is a valid argument against their pov. It’s almost like they’re personally invested in the SY switch, like it affects them individually to the point that they’re incapable of accepting that BY has legitimate reasons as a cutoff.

Was not on the ECNL podcast was another podcast with two current soccer directors and coaches. One was a former college coach as well.

The reason we went to BY had everything to do with making sure our best youth players were Jan to May because RAE is real and the best players and players that benefit the most statistically are always the oldest.

We were at a “disadvantage” because when we were school year our best players were Aug to December kids.

Which if you’re a real BY fan you can’t agree with that logic because then your whole argument about Aug to Dec kids needing to work harder and just aren’t as good of players falls apart.

Everything was spot on until this…just s-talking for no reason beyond some weird birth month animosity.

BY supporters I think are largely in the “international norms” “global benchmarking is
better for development” “we actually do have a soccer pyramid and the NTs are at the top of it” crowd.

Aug-Dec kids DO have to work harder. So do Jan- Aug kids. RAE is real…nobody is debating that. Seems you’ve got a weird hang up on trying to justify a perceived benefit being moved to Aug-Dec kids…and projecting it on random posters that mention the benefits BY has is not normal

Those BY arguments are for reducing RAE so all birth months have as equal chance as possible of reaching their highest levels, not for picking BY over SY.

If RAE was not an issue, NTs would be able to pick from about twice as many players as they do now. That's how you actually improve the NTs 5 years from now.

You’re confusing RAE with camps and pools. The NTs SHOULD have more camps. But if you look at BM distribution, the NTs are actually very good at reducing RAE and reverting to normal BM distribution.

We’re going full circle now to like pages 1-50 of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

The coach will prefer Q3/Q4 bench players than Q1/Q2 bench. Starters are from the best players regardless Q.

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

RAE reckoning coming.

RAE Reckoning?🤣

“How dare you be born before my child, in 2026 the tables will turn, and my child will be better because of new age cutoffs…beware! Your reckoning is coming for having a child born before mine!!!”

You’re crazy

Going to be a bunch of Q3-4 players finding better clubs around this time next season in preparation for Fall 2026 also. First mover advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

The coach will prefer Q3/Q4 bench players than Q1/Q2 bench. Starters are from the best players regardless Q.

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

RAE reckoning coming.

RAE Reckoning?🤣

“How dare you be born before my child, in 2026 the tables will turn, and my child will be better because of new age cutoffs…beware! Your reckoning is coming for having a child born before mine!!!”

You’re crazy

Going to be a bunch of Q3-4 players finding better clubs around this time next season in preparation for Fall 2026 also. First mover advantage.

🤭

[Anonymous]

I'll tell you one thing.

If there's a league that stays BY we might switch to that so I never have to hear the RAE complainers again. What a bunch of winey losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a club with pre-ecnl starting at 2015 now? I'm filling that team with q3 q4 kids at tryouts this year.

No you’re not…you’re filling it with the best kids in that age band that fill your roster.

All this complaining about RAE, and nobody seems to get how RAE works.

The coach will prefer Q3/Q4 bench players than Q1/Q2 bench. Starters are from the best players regardless Q.

Nice dream.

The coach prefers bench players that have an impact. Not bench players with some magical birthday. But you go on thinking the the birthday is the most important thing,

The thought wasn’t the coach would choose all Q3/4 players but rather choose them instead of Q1/2 players if the talent level was similar.

What do you think happened before? If you have two kids with similar talent fighting for the last spot on a team…the coach picks the one he likes most…they don’t check their birth certificate….and they won’t check the birth certificate in the future either.

This is some weird wishful thinking. Coaches give zero rips on birthdates. They don’t care at u-little, they don’t care at u-tween, and they don’t care even more in the teen years.

If you’re small and can ball, they aren’t checking your birth certificate, if you’re tall and can ball, they’re not checking your birth certificate.

If you’re tall and you suck…they’re not checking your birth certificate, if you’re small and suck…also not checking. Just because the coaches tell you they’re putting the kids that suck, regardless of birthday, on a lower level team to give them “time to develop” doesn’t mean what you think it means. The onus of developing footballers falls on the kid and parents, not the club.

Parents that think the club is going to pump out little college stars with team practice 4 days a week, 14 games, a couple of tournies and showcases must be the same ones convinced that the age cut-off makes any different at all. Just put your head down, put your kids head down and work your asses off…that is the only solution regardless of genetic gifts. The only solution is doing the hard work, even when and especially when nobody is looking.

RAE reckoning coming.

RAE Reckoning?🤣

“How dare you be born before my child, in 2026 the tables will turn, and my child will be better because of new age cutoffs…beware! Your reckoning is coming for having a child born before mine!!!”

You’re crazy

Going to be a bunch of Q3-4 players finding better clubs around this time next season in preparation for Fall 2026 also. First mover advantage.

“Coach I’m here to tryout”

“Great, what team did you play on last year?”

“DPL, I was the top striker.”

“Oh, ok, go on over to field 3 and join those kids with Coach Bill.”

….

“Sorry Kate, we made the roster for this team, and didn’t have space this year. But we did have a spot on our DPL team, would you consider joining them? As you play through the season we can see how you do and maybe move you up to our RL team if you’re crushing it. How does that sound?”

“But coach! I think you maybe missed it? I was born in October!”

“Um….what?”

“I have an October birthday!”

“Ok…would you like to join our club?”

“Yes! On the NL team. I’m an October birthday”

“Ok…well let’s start on the DPL team and see how it goes…”

“No, I want to be on the NL, I’m an October birthday.”