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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

[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: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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

SY is what I prefer because it gives m
DD a potential advantage. Glad ECNL is moving there. But every time these guys talk I am more convinced they are idiots, they remind me a the uninformed discussions we had at parties in HS when we all thought we were so smart. There are legit reasons for either age system, so either they’re actually ignorant or incredibly cynical, either option is awful for leadership of a youth sports organization.

[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?

Because they’re ignoramuses that think they know it all. The most dangerous sort of leaders.

[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: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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

[Anonymous]

My son’s team (Academy 1, playing USYS+USCS competitions)

Q1 -> 9
Q2 -> 8
Q3 -> 1 (my son)
Q4 -> 0

[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: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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

Its okay to just read and not contribute nonsense

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

admittedly anecdotal, but I hope everyone realizes that there are plenty of Q1/Q2 kids under current system who are small in size/stature AND immature. There are plenty of teams that have Q1/Q2 kids who are the smallest in size/stature on their teams (I was team manager, so I saw ages of all teams we played, so this isn't some Nostradamus nonsense). Being born in January or whatever doesn't mean you are bigger or faster or more mature; it depends on the "luck of the DNA draw." It will even out for the most part when many of the leagues switch to SY, with some outliers getting "screwed" of course, so not sure why there needs to be so much discussion about something that is nothing for most players. It worked pre-2016 or whenever and it will work again and not to the detriment of the majority of players. Everyone will end up where they should be and everyone can move on to complaining about something else.

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

admittedly anecdotal, but I hope everyone realizes that there are plenty of Q1/Q2 kids under current system who are small in size/stature AND immature. There are plenty of teams that have Q1/Q2 kids who are the smallest in size/stature on their teams (I was team manager, so I saw ages of all teams we played, so this isn't some Nostradamus nonsense). Being born in January or whatever doesn't mean you are bigger or faster or more mature; it depends on the "luck of the DNA draw." It will even out for the most part when many of the leagues switch to SY, with some outliers getting "screwed" of course, so not sure why there needs to be so much discussion about something that is nothing for most players. It worked pre-2016 or whenever and it will work again and not to the detriment of the majority of players. Everyone will end up where they should be and everyone can move on to complaining about something else.

Your use of plenty here is hyperbole and goes against what we all see and experience
It also goes against the statistics, studies and data which shows there is a bias in the selection process by coaches to pick the biggest most mature kids, who mainly fall in Q1 and Q2

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

Its okay to just read and not contribute nonsense

Nonsense would be ignoring the fact that high level teams at clubs are skewed towards older players and being a random parent but pretending to be some expert on youth sports.

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

admittedly anecdotal, but I hope everyone realizes that there are plenty of Q1/Q2 kids under current system who are small in size/stature AND immature. There are plenty of teams that have Q1/Q2 kids who are the smallest in size/stature on their teams (I was team manager, so I saw ages of all teams we played, so this isn't some Nostradamus nonsense). Being born in January or whatever doesn't mean you are bigger or faster or more mature; it depends on the "luck of the DNA draw." It will even out for the most part when many of the leagues switch to SY, with some outliers getting "screwed" of course, so not sure why there needs to be so much discussion about something that is nothing for most players. It worked pre-2016 or whenever and it will work again and not to the detriment of the majority of players. Everyone will end up where they should be and everyone can move on to complaining about something else.

Your use of plenty here is hyperbole and goes against what we all see and experience
It also goes against the statistics, studies and data which shows there is a bias in the selection process by coaches to pick the biggest most mature kids, who mainly fall in Q1 and Q2

like I said, it will all even out for the leagues who switch to SY. I don't care either way bc I know my kids will be okay regardless. you just want to argue and attempt to look smart, failing at both.

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

admittedly anecdotal, but I hope everyone realizes that there are plenty of Q1/Q2 kids under current system who are small in size/stature AND immature. There are plenty of teams that have Q1/Q2 kids who are the smallest in size/stature on their teams (I was team manager, so I saw ages of all teams we played, so this isn't some Nostradamus nonsense). Being born in January or whatever doesn't mean you are bigger or faster or more mature; it depends on the "luck of the DNA draw." It will even out for the most part when many of the leagues switch to SY, with some outliers getting "screwed" of course, so not sure why there needs to be so much discussion about something that is nothing for most players. It worked pre-2016 or whenever and it will work again and not to the detriment of the majority of players. Everyone will end up where they should be and everyone can move on to complaining about something else.

Nobody said that there are no outliers. Don't confuse yourself with what is referred to as "but sometimes" logic.

Think of it from an individual prospective. An individual child will be 6 months older and presumably more mature 6 months from now.

[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:

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.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

And they are the ones that are the oldest in an age group.

Talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic isn't tied to birth month or the oldest.

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Some coaches and teams may choose the biggest and fastest, doesn't mean they're the best.

It just needs a light edit:

Physicality and maturity is the advantage to the oldest.

Coaches and teams choose the biggest and fastest.

Over time talent, skills, discipline, soccer intelligence and work ethic is tied to birth month or being the oldest.

admittedly anecdotal, but I hope everyone realizes that there are plenty of Q1/Q2 kids under current system who are small in size/stature AND immature. There are plenty of teams that have Q1/Q2 kids who are the smallest in size/stature on their teams (I was team manager, so I saw ages of all teams we played, so this isn't some Nostradamus nonsense). Being born in January or whatever doesn't mean you are bigger or faster or more mature; it depends on the "luck of the DNA draw." It will even out for the most part when many of the leagues switch to SY, with some outliers getting "screwed" of course, so not sure why there needs to be so much discussion about something that is nothing for most players. It worked pre-2016 or whenever and it will work again and not to the detriment of the majority of players. Everyone will end up where they should be and everyone can move on to complaining about something else.

Your use of plenty here is hyperbole and goes against what we all see and experience
It also goes against the statistics, studies and data which shows there is a bias in the selection process by coaches to pick the biggest most mature kids, who mainly fall in Q1 and Q2

like I said, it will all even out for the leagues who switch to SY. I don't care either way bc I know my kids will be okay regardless. you just want to argue and attempt to look smart, failing at both.

Fyi, they weren't discussing the competitiveness of individual leagues based on an age cutoff change.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people are missing a well-documented part of RAE - that the overrepresentation of Q1 becomes more extreme as you select a more elite group. Yes, some older kids are late developers, and some younger kids are early developers. But when talking about the absolute best (obviously more so at younger ages), we are talking about the older kids who are *also* early developers. If the team is elite enough, it will be full of the kids with both advantages.

While the driving reason to switch to SY is not to change which kids are Q1, thinking it doesn't matter to who will ultimately be on the best teams is insane.