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: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.

Little man syndrome?

No they don’t. They split the teams based on skill and game impact. Sometimes it LOOKs like size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any Q1s on the US women's summer Olympic team?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you have zero evidence of birth months of college soccer players being evenly distributed but expect to be believed?

[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.

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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

[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.

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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

There are some really good Q3/4 ECNL players out there. When they get put in a group with younger kids you will see them as even more elite.

So yes will make great kids even better and make things more challenging for some other kids as well.

Will not make average or above average kids be able to play ECNL.

[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.

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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

There are some really good Q3/4 ECNL players out there. When they get put in a group with younger kids you will see them as even more elite.

So yes will make great kids even better and make things more challenging for some other kids as well.

Will not make average or above average kids be able to play ECNL.

You’re right, there are some very good Q3/Q4 kids out there…nobody is debating that. Nobody has said there aren’t. There are also some very good Q1/Q2 kids out there.

I think most people quibble with your assumption, because it fails at the “compared to who” logic. You’re saying compared to kids younger by 3-6 months. And you might be right. But it’s not knowable until you’re actually in the pool.

There are some very good Q1/2 kids in the younger pool that might be just as good…what then?

These “my kids birthday is better than your kids birthday” contests just don’t actually fit neatly into some sorry of talent waterfall.

[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.

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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

Totally get the logic behind your point of view. It’s wrong though. The date change doesn’t “elevate” anyone. Everything is earned. And chances are, if your kid is on an RL team, they’re not getting a look on a NL team unless they were playing up a couple of years and would be looking to play at age on NL.

Coaches and clubs do use team placement as a heuristic for future potential - even if they claim otherwise and even if it’s short sighted. Why do you think parents fight so hard and team chase? Breaking out of the minor leagues is extremely hard to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% on this one.

The RAE cultists are beyond annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% on this one.

The RAE cultists are beyond annoying.

So you would switch to the league that favors your kid for RAE so you don’t have to listen to parents complain about RAE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

Totally get the logic behind your point of view. It’s wrong though. The date change doesn’t “elevate” anyone. Everything is earned. And chances are, if your kid is on an RL team, they’re not getting a look on a NL team unless they were playing up a couple of years and would be looking to play at age on NL.

Coaches and clubs do use team placement as a heuristic for future potential - even if they claim otherwise and even if it’s short sighted. Why do you think parents fight so hard and team chase? Breaking out of the minor leagues is extremely hard to do.

When people hear RL they assume 2nd team most RL teams do not have ECNL so they are their clubs 1st team and typically have some really solid players. How many of them are Q3/4 is still debatable.

Sounds like GA will stay BY so will be interesting if parents of kids who lose spots decide to goto GA or stay on the RL team and try and work their way back up.

[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.

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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

There are some really good Q3/4 ECNL players out there. When they get put in a group with younger kids you will see them as even more elite.

So yes will make great kids even better and make things more challenging for some other kids as well.

Will not make average or above average kids be able to play ECNL.

You’re right, there are some very good Q3/Q4 kids out there…nobody is debating that. Nobody has said there aren’t. There are also some very good Q1/Q2 kids out there.

I think most people quibble with your assumption, because it fails at the “compared to who” logic. You’re saying compared to kids younger by 3-6 months. And you might be right. But it’s not knowable until you’re actually in the pool.

There are some very good Q1/2 kids in the younger pool that might be just as good…what then?

These “my kids birthday is better than your kids birthday” contests just don’t actually fit neatly into some sorry of talent waterfall.

Because of BY there will be more Q1/2 kids then Q3/4 who are better players as they have not dropped out of soccer. Which is one of the reasons for the switch back as they think kids are dropping out earlier because it’s hard for kids in later months to make the team at any level.

Because of this we will still have many Q1/2 kids be the majority in the older ages. The younger kids is where we will see more players from what is now Q3/4 start taking over down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% on this one.

The RAE cultists are beyond annoying.

So you would switch to the league that favors your kid for RAE so you don’t have to listen to parents complain about RAE?

Yes 100% because parents that talk about RAE believe that training and dedication trump natural ability.

Sorry, this is just not the case. Once you get to the highest levels the concept of fairness teams nothing. Either you're better than everyone else or you're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% on this one.

The RAE cultists are beyond annoying.

So you would switch to the league that favors your kid for RAE so you don’t have to listen to parents complain about RAE?

Yes 100% because parents that talk about RAE believe that training and dedication trump natural ability.

Sorry, this is just not the case. Once you get to the highest levels the concept of fairness teams nothing. Either you're better than everyone else or you're not.

So wouldn’t you want to put your kid in the league that doesn’t favor them? That way they could prove RAE isn’t a crutch for people to complain about.

[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: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.

Depends on the level? If you’re on an elite RL team for a club you can usually goto most clubs and make their top team.

But yes a switch to SY isn’t going to take a premier level kid and make them an ECNL star players.

But it will elevate and lower the level of the players who go from a starter 2010 ECNL player to now a 2010/2011 player.

Will also make it more difficult for a 2011 sub ECNL player to get a starting spot.

There are some really good Q3/4 ECNL players out there. When they get put in a group with younger kids you will see them as even more elite.

So yes will make great kids even better and make things more challenging for some other kids as well.

Will not make average or above average kids be able to play ECNL.

You’re right, there are some very good Q3/Q4 kids out there…nobody is debating that. Nobody has said there aren’t. There are also some very good Q1/Q2 kids out there.

I think most people quibble with your assumption, because it fails at the “compared to who” logic. You’re saying compared to kids younger by 3-6 months. And you might be right. But it’s not knowable until you’re actually in the pool.

There are some very good Q1/2 kids in the younger pool that might be just as good…what then?

These “my kids birthday is better than your kids birthday” contests just don’t actually fit neatly into some sorry of talent waterfall.

Because of BY there will be more Q1/2 kids then Q3/4 who are better players as they have not dropped out of soccer. Which is one of the reasons for the switch back as they think kids are dropping out earlier because it’s hard for kids in later months to make the team at any level.

Because of this we will still have many Q1/2 kids be the majority in the older ages. The younger kids is where we will see more players from what is now Q3/4 start taking over down the road.

So we’re back at the old kids quit sports at 13 argument…around and around we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

3/4 of Kids quit basketball by 13/14…basketball is SY.

3/4 of kids quit hockey by 13/14…SY!

3/4 of kids quit tennis by 13/14, tennis is birth month oriented for 2 year age groups…

Kids quit sports at that age because it’s hard, and they have other interests, goals and dreams.

Guess what else…when the age cutoff was SY before…kids quit at 13/14 at the same %

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% on this one.

The RAE cultists are beyond annoying.

So you would switch to the league that favors your kid for RAE so you don’t have to listen to parents complain about RAE?

Yes 100% because parents that talk about RAE believe that training and dedication trump natural ability.

Sorry, this is just not the case. Once you get to the highest levels the concept of fairness teams nothing. Either you're better than everyone else or you're not.

Huh? Are you saying natural ability trumps everything?