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:

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.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

[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.

Rodman is probably one of the most overrated players ever. She has the soccer IQ of a middle schooler, the soccer skill of a HSer, in the body of an elite athlete. Almost every game she plays I want to throw the remote. For every highlight, she makes 50 boneheaded mistakes that are totally unacceptable for a NT player.

Obviously a biased opinion that conflicts with the professional soccer minds in her universe

Or you can look at her opta stats and see that she is generally a pretty average or poor performer for a number of very important skills, like passing, retaining possession, and even xG….and then MAYBE you’ll come to the conclusion that the media plays a pretty significant part in how people see players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

US Soccer says it will. Game over.

No…US Soccer didn’t say that. You’re reading into the removal of a mandate as an endorsement of a mandate…dumb take.

"U.S. Soccer and our members are committed to growing participation and providing the best experiences to participants at all levels."

[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: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.

The ECNL bros are idiots. They’re the worst kind too, idiots in power that think they know everything.

If you had a coach that thought they knew it all, you’d fire them. But because the ECNL
Bros have a league and a podcast, we all are supposed to just sit here and nod to their dorm room philosophy?

ECNL didn't go out on a limb here, I haven't found anybody making the argument that coaches and clubs don't generally pick winning over player development.

Fair, and agreed. Both of us can be right.

[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: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.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

[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:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

? That’s a meaningless statement. Participation was decreasing before the 2016 switch. Participation peaked in 2010, 6 years before the switch to BY. And participation was increasing from 2022 to present…so the argument is “only look at 2016-2022 and blame BY?”

Dumb, uniformed take.

[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:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

? That’s a meaningless statement. Participation was decreasing before the 2016 switch. Participation peaked in 2010, 6 years before the switch to BY. And participation was increasing from 2022 to present…so the argument is “only look at 2016-2022 and blame BY?”

Dumb, uniformed take.

Thank you for acknowledging that youth participation in soccer is down since change from SY to BY. You can now do your gymnastics to try to explain it away, but you can’t avoid this fact.

[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.

Rodman is probably one of the most overrated players ever. She has the soccer IQ of a middle schooler, the soccer skill of a HSer, in the body of an elite athlete. Almost every game she plays I want to throw the remote. For every highlight, she makes 50 boneheaded mistakes that are totally unacceptable for a NT player.

Obviously a biased opinion that conflicts with the professional soccer minds in her universe

Or you can look at her opta stats and see that she is generally a pretty average or poor performer for a number of very important skills, like passing, retaining possession, and even xG….and then MAYBE you’ll come to the conclusion that the media plays a pretty significant part in how people see players.

Again, Trinity has off the charts natural talent. This is catnip for coaches that think they can teach soccer iq to players.

If you want to argue that natural talent gives players an advantage over other players (like being a Jan 1 birthday) I would 100% be on board with it + at all levels.

[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: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.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

[Anonymous]

Interesting fact: No other major US sport uses birth year to determine age groups except US soccer.

[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:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

? That’s a meaningless statement. Participation was decreasing before the 2016 switch. Participation peaked in 2010, 6 years before the switch to BY. And participation was increasing from 2022 to present…so the argument is “only look at 2016-2022 and blame BY?”

Dumb, uniformed take.

Thank you for acknowledging that youth participation in soccer is down since change from SY to BY. You can now do your gymnastics to try to explain it away, but you can’t avoid this fact.

And a proudly willfully dumb uniformed response. Your kids will be a reflection of you, good and bad.


I’m sorry for your loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting fact: No other major US sport uses birth year to determine age groups except US soccer.

Interesting fact. There are sports like tennis, that use neither.

There are sports like swimming that use non SY.

Gymnastics uses BY

[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.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

[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:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

? That’s a meaningless statement. Participation was decreasing before the 2016 switch. Participation peaked in 2010, 6 years before the switch to BY. And participation was increasing from 2022 to present…so the argument is “only look at 2016-2022 and blame BY?”

Dumb, uniformed take.

Thank you for acknowledging that youth participation in soccer is down since change from SY to BY. You can now do your gymnastics to try to explain it away, but you can’t avoid this fact.

And a proudly willfully dumb uniformed response. Your kids will be a reflection of you, good and bad.


I’m sorry for your loss.

Don’t let facts hit you on the way out. Appreciate all your “I think” and “I feel” contributions to the discussion.