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:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

[Anonymous]

The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now ECNL is crying saying they want US Soccer to tell them what to do. l o l

Not true.

ECNL is tired of the delay tactics and the sand being thrown in the gears to stop change.

"Well, let's go to our first topic here, the much maligned birth year, school year registration decision, the decision that seems to constantly need more decisions and more time for more research on more decisions and more discussions about decisions until there's a decision, and then there's memos about decisions and then there's a decision that is not fully a decision, but is it a postponement of a decision? And I think actually everything I just said there is accurate."

"There's a stick in the mud all the time. I just wonder. I would wonder the. Not that we have to speculate on that, but I would just wonder what the reasoning for something like that is. Because if you're a youth we've gone back and forth about this ad nauseum on this podcast but if you are a youth club operator, there's not a whole lot of positives you can glean from the January 1 and birth year registration."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Hey they could be a savant at the carnival "guess my age" game!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They didn't say it specifically, but they say

"But I think if you are participating in a league that does not value school sports, then changing may not be in your interest. It may not be for you. If your kids don't play high school, if they're not be in your interest, it may not be for you. You know, if your kids don't play high school, if they're not involved in these things, then you know you may see some of those leagues choose not to change, and that's certainly their choice."

That seems like a clear illusion to MLS Next but boy is that a hard sell for GA where alllllllll the girls play high school soccer.

Yeah would be really dumb for GA to not let girls play high school. But they can still stay BY and let kids play high school. Same as it is now.

They could, but girls chose ECNL over GA today as is most of the time. It's the way better league. No Q3/Q4 player would chose a trap, so what reason would there ever be to chose GA?

If you’re a current Q1/2 ECNL player and you get displaced due to older girls getting roster spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

GA stays in BY will put itself in a bad position for college recruiting. It will change to SY as well just to be relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

It was SY 6 or 7 years ago and everything was fine...why is everyone freaking out of something so inconsequential? My DC went from Q1 to Q4 on the SY to BY transfer and still got a scholarship and played in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Doubt PP was saying even distribution of birth months
They saying the quality balances out at lower levels like ECNL because there's no big differences between player skill levels separated by couple months

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

It was SY 6 or 7 years ago and everything was fine...why is everyone freaking out of something so inconsequential? My DC went from Q1 to Q4 on the SY to BY transfer and still got a scholarship and played in college.

Most people aren't freaking out because most of us realize it will be a minimal impact to most players regardless of when their bday is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Doubt PP was saying even distribution of birth months
They saying the quality balances out at lower levels like ECNL because there's no big differences between player skill levels separated by couple months

So you would look at birth month distributions to see if this is accurate.

[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:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Doubt PP was saying even distribution of birth months
They saying the quality balances out at lower levels like ECNL because there's no big differences between player skill levels separated by couple months

So you would look at birth month distributions to see if this is accurate.

Need to look at birth months to tell your eyes they're looking at mediocre soccer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

It was SY 6 or 7 years ago and everything was fine...why is everyone freaking out of something so inconsequential? My DC went from Q1 to Q4 on the SY to BY transfer and still got a scholarship and played in college.

The ECNL kids that have a real chance at a scholarship will be fine. Just like they always have. It’s the kids who more than likely are not getting scholarships who will lose their spots and need a new league to play in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BY parents will do mental gymnastics to justify why we should stay BY….

They need to just be honest and want their kids to play with kids a grade below them….

It’s going to school year 2026. The best thing BY parents can hope for is that GA stays BY so they have a place to play.

It was SY 6 or 7 years ago and everything was fine...why is everyone freaking out of something so inconsequential? My DC went from Q1 to Q4 on the SY to BY transfer and still got a scholarship and played in college.

Most people aren't freaking out because most of us realize it will be a minimal impact to most players regardless of when their bday is.

Will probably be about 40% turn over for 26/27 season. Just a guess of course but more than likely about 7 kids per team of 18 will be moved out for older/bigger players.

[Anonymous]

At our girls ECNL team --- birthdays are: Q1 33%; Q2 23%; Q3 19%; Q4 23%. Lose a couple of points in rounding.

Not really a big difference.