ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

True, I'm not an expert in physiology or sports science and my kid plays NCSL 3

Can you explain in detail how natural ability is the driver to the discipline, drive and motivations to train?

How does acknowledging the existence of speed cameras makes one an advocate of speed camera tickets?

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

[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:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

Are we allowed to go back to the justification of reducing RAE on why they changed from SY to BY creating this mess in the first place?

Oh please 🙄
No one was talking about RAE in 2017 or whenever the change happened

US Soccer went to BY because the rest of the real soccer world outside England does BY.
England has programs in place to deal with RAE as a federation. We don't.

Seriously that was absolutely the justification. https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/five-things-to-know-about-birth-year-registration

Shh don't let facts get in the way of the RAE narrative some parent has built in their head.

REA DOES NOT MATTER at the highest levels. You have players with ridiculous natural ability/talent playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that have a shot at playing professionally or for a national team. Until you've seen natural talent of this level I can see how parents might think that if their kid just trained harder or paid their club to have a higher soccer iq matters. It doesn't when unicorns are bigger faster and often younger.

Here's an example, on my kids team there is a very well known pro sports players kid. She's playing 2 years up and her natural abilities are off the charts. The coaches all love her and so does the national team coaches. REA has nothing to do with her crazy level of natural talent. These are the type of players that play professionally. Don't kid yourself. The month or year your kid was born in don't matter when the have freakish natural ability.

It's hard to explain this to a littles rec parent that has no idea how things work at the highest levels.

So you seem to be getting confused because a handful of players would remain on National teams regardless of the age cutoffs. The point is that the age cutoff will impact many of the players that are/would have heen on the youth nationals teams, they will lean towards being on the older side of the age cutoff, this was a justification to go towards BY, it worked for youth national teams but would merely make the adult national teams switch from a certain set of months to another set of months (the set of months that lean towards being older).

Don't pay attention to XYZ National Team, or Pro team with its players that have birthdates + ages all over the place.

What's important is to call everything RAE which allows everyone to be a victim.

Sorry I just don't care if you think your kid is getting screwed because of the month they were born. I think my kid is getting screwed having to play on a team with an annoying parent who thinks RAE is the answer to everything with youth soccer.

Birth dates/ ages all over the place doesn't equal relatively evenly distributed. Birth dates seemingly on adult national team all over the place tends to be from the change in age cutoffs. Can you a youth national team in the last few years that has relatively even birth months?

Fyi, the most common age for the U23 men's Olympic team was 23 and the birth months are front loaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

[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:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

Are we allowed to go back to the justification of reducing RAE on why they changed from SY to BY creating this mess in the first place?

Oh please 🙄
No one was talking about RAE in 2017 or whenever the change happened

US Soccer went to BY because the rest of the real soccer world outside England does BY.
England has programs in place to deal with RAE as a federation. We don't.

Seriously that was absolutely the justification. https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/five-things-to-know-about-birth-year-registration

Shh don't let facts get in the way of the RAE narrative some parent has built in their head.

REA DOES NOT MATTER at the highest levels. You have players with ridiculous natural ability/talent playing up 1-2 years. These are the ones that have a shot at playing professionally or for a national team. Until you've seen natural talent of this level I can see how parents might think that if their kid just trained harder or paid their club to have a higher soccer iq matters. It doesn't when unicorns are bigger faster and often younger.

Here's an example, on my kids team there is a very well known pro sports players kid. She's playing 2 years up and her natural abilities are off the charts. The coaches all love her and so does the national team coaches. REA has nothing to do with her crazy level of natural talent. These are the type of players that play professionally. Don't kid yourself. The month or year your kid was born in don't matter when the have freakish natural ability.

It's hard to explain this to a littles rec parent that has no idea how things work at the highest levels.

Ignorance shouted from the rooftop.

If YOU knew everything about the impacts of RAE, then you would know

You are part of the RAE cult.

You want everything to be equal and I'm sorry to be the one that informs you about this life isn't fair or equal. Someone will always have an advantage it's just how things work.

Obviously you're a littles parent who thinks they have it all figured out. You don't, and it doesn't matter. If your kid is good and you actually start playing on or against high level competitive teams your mindset will change.

It's hard trying to explain how things work to blockhead youngers rec oarents.

Only accepting unfairness in sports as some sort of grand status quo is the complete antithesis of sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Of course RAE Selection Bias doesn't exist at Older Post Puberty levels
The damage has already been done at the younger levels pre-puberty.

The downstream Effects extend into the older highest levels.
(you have a lock on ignorance of the topic, but yet you go on)

Which high level coaches and top levels youth organizations are you directly affiliated with?
Just so we can know how much weight to give your opinion that goes against published peer reviewed evidence.

[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:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

All we need to know is that U.S. Soccer used increased soccer participation as justification to remove the birth year mandate. We can argue in a handful years if it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

So, still confused here. If RAE isnt real, and great players will be great no matter what. Why does it matter if they switch to SY? It should be indifference- as it doesn't matter. Use April 1 as a cut off date. If Jan-March birthdays are 'good'...they can still compete anyways...if not they are just bad players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

Someone with a kid playing on a highest level team is telling you that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels and you choose to put your head in the sand.

Whatever it doesn't matter. Either eventually you'll understand what I've relayed or you won't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

What does that have to do with switching to SY? It doesn't matter what cutoff date- good players will be good players. Change it to April 1...shouldn't make a difference.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

Someone with a kid playing on a highest level team is telling you that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels and you choose to put your head in the sand.

Whatever it doesn't matter. Either eventually you'll understand what I've relayed or you won't

[Anonymous]

Trust the Science B1tches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

What does that have to do with switching to SY? It doesn't matter what cutoff date- good players will be good players. Change it to April 1...shouldn't make a difference.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

Someone with a kid playing on a highest level team is telling you that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels and you choose to put your head in the sand.

Whatever it doesn't matter. Either eventually you'll understand what I've relayed or you won't

What does this have to do with SY change? RAE doesn't matter- then it doesnt matter when the cutoff date is. Might as well keep kids in same grade level. Good players will be good players no matter the cutoff date. Go with April 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

Someone with a kid playing on a highest level team is telling you that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels and you choose to put your head in the sand.

Whatever it doesn't matter. Either eventually you'll understand what I've relayed or you won't

Hahahahaha
Your kid could be at La Masia in Barcelona and it doesn't make you an expert at anything.
Many kids are at MLS Academies here with semi-clueless parents.
It's their youth coaches that got them there.

I keep presenting the conclusions detailed in academic studies on RAE done in multiple countries using academy players that shows the impact of Selection Bias attributed to Relative Age Effect
They point to examples like Harry Kane, Declan Rice etc

But you want us to listen to your opinion over the factual evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the pro players kid?

Major league baseball player. Both he and his dad were MLB. The daughter has freakish abilities + you can tell that if she worked at it could get 10x better.

It's amazing to watch a player that's bigger faster younger etc etc etc + everything is just natural ability.

Natural ability has a limited shelf life

I saw Trinity Rodman play as a youth for Blues at Surf Cup. I've seen ridiculous youth natural ability.

For many natural ability does fade. But for some it does not. They will always be bigger, faster, and stronger than their competition.

These are the type of players that are on pro and national teams. RAE doesn't come into the picture. These are also the type of players on top youth teams.

RAE might matter at the littles rec levels but it does not at the highest youth competitive levels. This is why ECNL partnering with littles leagues on SY isn't a good choice. If you're playing at the highest levels SY or BY doesn't matter.

If natural ability was enough, then all the known greats in their sports wouldn't train.

Or, the players that have natural ability use it to train 5x harder and get 5x better than they already are.

This is what's referred to as a players physical ceiling. Some players will only get so good no matter how much they train. Other players players naturally have a higher physical ceiling and with training can become absolutely dominating.

What I'm describing sounds foreign to you because you're all about RAE nonsense + trying to make everyone equal. In the real world this is what high level teams are looking for in players.

Are you saying RAE bias doesn't exist and you have proof that goes against all the studies?

No, I'm saying that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels + if you said the kind of things you've said on this thread about RAE to a coach on a high level team they'll laugh in your face. So would most of the other players and parents involved.

Since many RAE studies used the birth months of athletes at top youth academies to show Q1 and Q2 bias, your statement that it doesn't matter at the highest levels is poppycock

Someone with a kid playing on a highest level team is telling you that RAE doesn't matter at the highest levels and you choose to put your head in the sand.

Whatever it doesn't matter. Either eventually you'll understand what I've relayed or you won't

Seriously dude, siding with a large body of research, facts and figures over a random soccer parent is the exact opposite of having their head in the sand.

Clubs and coaches focusing on short term winning and being ignorant on the relative age effect is problematic for the state of youth soccer, as pointed in in an earlier ECNL podcast.