ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

Training and dedication DO trump natural ability…but that’s not really what you’re saying.

Your saying if a kid that has no innate athletic ability works just as hard a someone that has natural athletic ability they’ll lose. Great thought experiment, and in a vacuum the logic seems solid 0+10=10 vs 3+10=13

BUT the research doesn’t support that conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Training and dedication DO trump natural ability…but that’s not really what you’re saying.

Your saying if a kid that has no innate athletic ability works just as hard a someone that has natural athletic ability they’ll lose. Great thought experiment, and in a vacuum the logic seems solid 0+10=10 vs 3+10=13

BUT the research doesn’t support that conclusion.

You're not your.

Also natural talent and quality development will ALWAYS trump development alone.

[Anonymous]

I posted about 250 pages ago on RAE. A big part of the problem is that from the beginning, the biggest oldest kids get the best training and most playing time. That effect is cumulative over time and builds confidence, along with top team potential. A switch to SY honestly doesn’t change that, just switches the months, but nothing will change that. It is what it is until coaches in the US start playing like Spain.

[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.

Most who achieve success (sports, wealth, academy) are unwilling to admit the advantages and luck they had and feel like their hard work was everything and get angry when their good fortune is pointed out to them. Having your head in the sand doesn't make unwanted truths go away.

[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.

"Everything is earned" and claiming that coaches/clubs are good predicting soccer futures of 6 years don't match with youth soccer reality in the DMV. Kids get promoted all the time when they switch clubs.

[Anonymous]

I don't get why this is so hard for so many people to understand on both sides of the debate.

1. RAE exists no matter what, just the months with the advantage differ.
2. Club teams understandably use RAE and their teams are disproportionate towards kids born in the first 6 months.
3. BY does not align with college recruitment by grad year and a lot of BY studs struggle and wash out in college when they go up against older kids. That's why colleges want Grad Year or at least school year. That would orient the feeder program (club soccer) to more align with their recruitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

Which kids (birth months) are quitting and why? Also competitive hockey is definitely BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

The point isn’t kids quit sports it’s that participation rates are highly from the Q1/2 months for all teams. That is not good for the sport. Also you are wrong kids statistically stay in sports longer in SY age groups.

Also I’m pretty certain hockey is BY and there was even a book written about how the best hockey kids/pros are Jan to March.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

The point isn’t kids quit sports it’s that participation rates are highly from the Q1/2 months for all teams. That is not good for the sport. Also you are wrong kids statistically stay in sports longer in SY age groups.

Also I’m pretty certain hockey is BY and there was even a book written about how the best hockey kids/pros are Jan to March.

All of these SY/BY arguments for soccer fall apart when you realize sports like basketball and football also have age cutoffs but nobody seems to blame it for all the ills of the sport. Why is it only a problem for soccer? Maybe there is something else different about soccer that is a bigger problem because the other sports don't seem to have the smae issues with age cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

The point isn’t kids quit sports it’s that participation rates are highly from the Q1/2 months for all teams. That is not good for the sport. Also you are wrong kids statistically stay in sports longer in SY age groups.

Also I’m pretty certain hockey is BY and there was even a book written about how the best hockey kids/pros are Jan to March.

All of these SY/BY arguments for soccer fall apart when you realize sports like basketball and football also have age cutoffs but nobody seems to blame it for all the ills of the sport. Why is it only a problem for soccer? Maybe there is something else different about soccer that is a bigger problem because the other sports don't seem to have the smae issues with age cutoffs.

No, it's a big deal in other sports and even academics also. Because most people don't know something exists doesn't make it not exist, it makes them uninformed.

[Anonymous]

College football is notorious for sending Q4 kids to JUCO. Its also why they have redshirt years. Vast majority of Q2,3,4 kids are not ready to play.

[Anonymous]

If Q1/Q2 players are at the same caliber in all things consider with Q3/Q4 players - would this mean coaches/ club would prefer Q1/Q2 players?

I was under the impression of if kids can play - it really doesn’t matter which quarter they were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why this is so hard for so many people to understand on both sides of the debate.

1. RAE exists no matter what, just the months with the advantage differ.
2. Club teams understandably use RAE and their teams are disproportionate towards kids born in the first 6 months.
3. BY does not align with college recruitment by grad year and a lot of BY studs struggle and wash out in college when they go up against older kids. That's why colleges want Grad Year or at least school year. That would orient the feeder program (club soccer) to more align with their recruitment.

Good summary.

It is hard for many because parents want advantages for their kids but don't want to acknowledge them and parents stand up for their kids if they perceive an unfair situation for their kids.

And a shocking number of people can't handle change or anything different from their childhood or views different from their preconceived notions or new information that goes against their model of the world.

Also, coaches and clubs as a whole overinflate their scouting and training abilities and anybody that attacks their opinions as the soccer savants they think they are or their business model becomes their enemy. And that changing a date range in a computer system being such a time consuming endeavor is such a huge red herring.

A fair situation will be to have birth year and school year at some of the highest levels of youth soccer and some of the youngest to attempt to address the relative age effect. Will be interesting to see if this works. But school alone caused problems and birth year alone caused problems. The reasons for wanting only birth year or school year alone (needing inter league tournaments, crowning some national champion) are way less than having both (addressing the relative age effect and allowing players to reach their full potential.)

Pick the the league you want for your kid, birth year or school year, and don't begrudge those that make a different choice. It's not hard, it really is that easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

The point isn’t kids quit sports it’s that participation rates are highly from the Q1/2 months for all teams. That is not good for the sport. Also you are wrong kids statistically stay in sports longer in SY age groups.

Also I’m pretty certain hockey is BY and there was even a book written about how the best hockey kids/pros are Jan to March.

All of these SY/BY arguments for soccer fall apart when you realize sports like basketball and football also have age cutoffs but nobody seems to blame it for all the ills of the sport. Why is it only a problem for soccer? Maybe there is something else different about soccer that is a bigger problem because the other sports don't seem to have the smae issues with age cutoffs.

Grad year!!!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 %

The point isn’t kids quit sports it’s that participation rates are highly from the Q1/2 months for all teams. That is not good for the sport. Also you are wrong kids statistically stay in sports longer in SY age groups.

Also I’m pretty certain hockey is BY and there was even a book written about how the best hockey kids/pros are Jan to March.

All of these SY/BY arguments for soccer fall apart when you realize sports like basketball and football also have age cutoffs but nobody seems to blame it for all the ills of the sport. Why is it only a problem for soccer? Maybe there is something else different about soccer that is a bigger problem because the other sports don't seem to have the smae issues with age cutoffs.

It’s a rich kid sport is an issue. Very few low cost great coaching options. Also Basketball and football are not as big internationally. Basketball is gaining some ground.

I’m sure there are lots of factors to consider but idk that anyone blaming SY/BYore just pointing out flaws or what some parents think is an injustice of RAE.