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:

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you 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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

And for the thousandth time....

Changing from BY to SY doesn't make RAE go away. It just shifts who is affected.

You like to argue that shifting cutoff dates around will somehow make things "better". This is not true, the same amount of players will be affected.

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

And for the thousandth time....

Changing from BY to SY doesn't make RAE go away. It just shifts who is affected.

You like to argue that shifting cutoff dates around will somehow make things "better". This is not true, the same amount of players will be affected.

Where is it argued that shifting dates will make RAE go away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

So how does this quote make the PP incorrect?
They said its about talented late developers not getting selected, which is the same as saying the early developers are getting selected.

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

Nothing like being ignorant, loud and confident.
Every full study of RAE discusses talented late developers not getting selected over less talented more mature players.

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

So how does this quote make the PP incorrect?
They said its about talented late developers not getting selected, which is the same as saying the early developers are getting selected.

They actually said, "In
here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams."

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

So how does this quote make the PP incorrect?
They said its about talented late developers not getting selected, which is the same as saying the early developers are getting selected.

They actually said, "In
here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams."

Whats incorrect about that statement?

[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:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

And for the thousandth time....

Changing from BY to SY doesn't make RAE go away. It just shifts who is affected.

You like to argue that shifting cutoff dates around will somehow make things "better". This is not true, the same amount of players will be affected.

Where is it argued that shifting dates will make RAE go away?

I was say every 5th comment in support of SY.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

So how does this quote make the PP incorrect?
They said its about talented late developers not getting selected, which is the same as saying the early developers are getting selected.

They actually said, "In
here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams."

Whats incorrect about that statement?

Fairs point, incomplete rather than inaccurate.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

This is the perfect response to illustrate one doesn’t understand RAE…

Thank you. So many people assume RAE is about short kids around the teenage years w/o actually reading the research.

In here people really don't know it's about very good players who are late physical developers with high potential not getting selected for opportunities on real elite teams.
If you're 11 years old born in November and can't juggle to 10, RAE doesn't impact you.

You just outed yourself as completely misunderstanding the science and impacts of RAE.

No they're correct.

You just want to use RAE to bully people around in arguments + move the goalposts in your favor.

Googling relative age effect, "The relative age effect (RAE) is a bias in which athletes born earlier in a selection year are more likely to participate in sports than would be expected. This bias is also known as the birthdate effect." Know you now.

And for the thousandth time....

Changing from BY to SY doesn't make RAE go away. It just shifts who is affected.

You like to argue that shifting cutoff dates around will somehow make things "better". This is not true, the same amount of players will be affected.

Where is it argued that shifting dates will make RAE go away?

I was say every 5th comment in support of SY.

Ok, you're reading into it.

[Anonymous]

I like how this was a ECNL going to school year forum and now that it’s a given for Fall 26 it’s a RAE is or isn’t real and what everyone’s interpretation of RAE is forum.

[Anonymous]

600 here we come!!