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: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.”

What club are you at? Clearly not in the DMV with that number of teams and platforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

What club are you at? Clearly not in the DMV with that number of teams and platforms.

I’m just making a point.

[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.

Lmao. You don’t just leave a 2nd/3rd team and become a first team player pal. The stink carries over bud.

No one is going to leave to position themselves for something that’s 2 years away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If what you say is true, we never would have switched to BY from 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: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.”

What club are you at? Clearly not in the DMV with that number of teams and platforms.

I’m just making a point.

You know that's not how tryouts work. So many posters here correctly point out its the clubs themselves that will be looking for the advantage with the switch to SY to improve their teams. They'll be recruiting that angle. Those convos won't be on the field at tryouts. They'll be when players/parents call in the weeks/months beforehand to see if they have a shot. The "tryout" will be when the players shows up at a practice to see how they fit in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

What club are you at? Clearly not in the DMV with that number of teams and platforms.

Why would you say that? Loudon, McLean, Arlington and PWSI have all of those plus. NL, RL, Plus 3-5 levels 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: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.”

What club are you at? Clearly not in the DMV with that number of teams and platforms.

I’m just making a point.

You know that's not how tryouts work. So many posters here correctly point out its the clubs themselves that will be looking for the advantage with the switch to SY to improve their teams. They'll be recruiting that angle. Those convos won't be on the field at tryouts. They'll be when players/parents call in the weeks/months beforehand to see if they have a shot. The "tryout" will be when the players shows up at a practice to see how they fit in.

This. Most Ecnl teams in the dmv do not host open tryouts. All done through people attending practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

They split teams on size not birthday but of course there is a large correlation. Kate won't need to point out she is bigger than the younger kids next year with an October birthday because they already would have sent her to the fields where they evaluate bigger kids for better teams.

You guys make teams and coaches seem blind to potential changes. They are competitive looking to take advantage of change. It's what they do and will do. They aren't looking out for your kid, they want to win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why did USSF switch to BY if the best kids where just going to show up for youth national teams? And you are arguing that we shouldn't try to reduce RAE?

Garden variety old persons I hiked up hill to and from school rant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:512 pages of a bunch of insecure people wondering if their kids will be at an advantage or not.

If your kid is U13 and up you know chances are coaches know where your kid stand as far as playing at the next level.

You have the all-stars - the kids that you can see on the field and just think damn they are good. Easily Power 5 D1.

The steady Freddy’s -kids that play on top teams and do things on the field right 90% of the time. A little scared to be creative but could make a top team at just about every local club. D1 but not very big schools.

Lower end of of your ecnl/ga team could possibly go d1 but very unlikely. Now you’re getting into D2/D3 kids or maybe even kids that will have to find another passion.

There are some teams though where you have 80% of the team going D1 ( see teams that have won a national championship at U15 and up)

That's the whole point about going from SY from BY
All stars could become Freds and vice versa, Freds and lower end of team could switch, kids going from ECNL to ECRL and ECRL to ECNL.

SY coming in will flip a not insignificant number of say 11-12-13 year old kids off the college path and a similar number on the college path.

No….

Yes, college sports participation is impacted by you age cutoffs, "In each of those sports, we see higher proportions of birthdays just after traditional youth system age cutoffs (these are the oldest children in their youth sports age groups)." https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx#:~:text=Previous studies have noted elite,their youth sports age groups).

Any proof that birth months of college sports are not a factor in rosters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure? Of the 24 WNT recent call ups only 1 player was from Q1 over the age of 23. (There were only 2 other younger Q1s who would have played mostly under BY as kids). Lends some credence to USSF being right to switch to BY if there only goal was to try to align youth NT with older players, Q1. Of course at the expense of many others.

Where can you show that NT teams have a relatively even distribution while accounting for the switch from BY to SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If what you say is true, we never would have switched to BY from SY.

It’s verifiably true.

And I agree, it’s a net negative at the top of the pyramid to switch. But for the individual case, it makes little difference. And for the USYS / AYSO crowd, SY is probably a better option.

I think what USSF started, but didn’t finish is closer to how it should be.

State and local leagues = SY

Regional = SY or flexible

National Leagues low competition = Flexible or BY

National Leagues high competition = BY

But at the end of the day, I don’t really care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sure? Of the 24 WNT recent call ups only 1 player was from Q1 over the age of 23. (There were only 2 other younger Q1s who would have played mostly under BY as kids). Lends some credence to USSF being right to switch to BY if there only goal was to try to align youth NT with older players, Q1. Of course at the expense of many others.

Where can you show that NT teams have a relatively even distribution while accounting for the switch from BY to SY?

🫠 someone did this same BS on the boys side like 200 pages ago claiming nobody outside of January. You can pick your team or metric to make your point, but the data is easy to find in the aggregate. And you’re wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:512 pages of a bunch of insecure people wondering if their kids will be at an advantage or not.

If your kid is U13 and up you know chances are coaches know where your kid stand as far as playing at the next level.

You have the all-stars - the kids that you can see on the field and just think damn they are good. Easily Power 5 D1.

The steady Freddy’s -kids that play on top teams and do things on the field right 90% of the time. A little scared to be creative but could make a top team at just about every local club. D1 but not very big schools.

Lower end of of your ecnl/ga team could possibly go d1 but very unlikely. Now you’re getting into D2/D3 kids or maybe even kids that will have to find another passion.

There are some teams though where you have 80% of the team going D1 ( see teams that have won a national championship at U15 and up)

That's the whole point about going from SY from BY
All stars could become Freds and vice versa, Freds and lower end of team could switch, kids going from ECNL to ECRL and ECRL to ECNL.

SY coming in will flip a not insignificant number of say 11-12-13 year old kids off the college path and a similar number on the college path.

No….

Yes, college sports participation is impacted by you age cutoffs, "In each of those sports, we see higher proportions of birthdays just after traditional youth system age cutoffs (these are the oldest children in their youth sports age groups)." https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx#:~:text=Previous studies have noted elite,their youth sports age groups).

Any proof that birth months of college sports are not a factor in rosters?

You literally reposted the link that this whole thread was a debate about. Nice try to reignite a point you were wrong on.

Go back to go, do not collect $200 dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So why did USSF switch to BY if the best kids where just going to show up for youth national teams? And you are arguing that we shouldn't try to reduce RAE?

Garden variety old persons I hiked up hill to and from school rant.

That’s not what that poster said. Nice strawman to jump into your favorite topic of argumentation.