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:

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?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

My daughters ECNL team is
Q1 9 Q2 5 Q3 3 Q1 0

I’ll let someone else do the math.

[Anonymous]

My daughters ecnl team is
Q1 8
Q2 8
Q3 1
Q4 0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

https://airtable.com/appIuBuVdCyfRB5y5/shrNdP6xMja704gXm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

"DC, we held you back a year because we knew we wouldn't be able to provide you the tools to compete and win"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

"DC, we held you back a year because we knew we wouldn't be able to provide you the tools to compete and win"

The state of America youth soccer. Mental

[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.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

[Anonymous]

My son's previous ECNL team was in the top 10 in the nation.

Q1 55%
Q2 30%
Q3 0
Q4 15%

After he left, they got 1 Q3

[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.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

[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.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

[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: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.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

At our kid’s club it is Q1 45%, Q2 38%, Q3 15%, Q4 2%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

At our kid’s club it is Q1 45%, Q2 38%, Q3 15%, Q4 2%

Like the poster who noted along with the breakdown that it was on a top 10 team, everyone should include their ranking (and/or status within their table). That would be even more revealing.