Trapped/Re-aging Families, How are you having the conversation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

For competitive clubs, nobody gets to play up (except National teamers which would be skewed towards Jan-May) and July, June and May will on average struggle for top team slots in SY like Oct, Nov and Dec struggled under BY. So nobody is likely to play up because the top team slots are taken by the older player birthdates in the age group.

That makes no sense. Now because you refuse to admit the obvious you're mixing BY into SY. You also added that only National Team players would be the only ones play up which was not written or defined anywhere.

So slimy just admit the truth.

It's over. ECNL didn't want players playing up except in very rare circumstances on a case by case basis and teams agreed. 9 to 1.

I went back and listened to the ECNL podcast and I dont think your interpretation is correct. It sounded to me that Lavars didnt want younger teams playing up a level. Which makes sense if you want to maintain the credibility of the league. I don't think he was talking about individual players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

Whoever you're argueing with is just going to keep changing their responses to fit their narrative.

Your continued argu(e)ment spelling gives away your parroting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

But Aug/Sept players playing up wouldn't be correlated with their actual grade because skill and maturity are the criteria so on the odd chance one does get to play up they are likely to be playing with kids in the grade above them.

Ok heres another mind bender.

Somehow you think grade down Aug players would be playing up more often than grade up players playing with their grade. This makes no sense accoring to rae there's no reason one type of Aug birthday is any differnet than another.

With September 1 being a prevalent starting school date there are more August kids as the youngest in their grade than oldest.

And this is why they should have stuck with the 9/1 cut off. But apparently boy parents hold their kids back alot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

But Aug/Sept players playing up wouldn't be correlated with their actual grade because skill and maturity are the criteria so on the odd chance one does get to play up they are likely to be playing with kids in the grade above them.

Ok heres another mind bender.

Somehow you think grade down Aug players would be playing up more often than grade up players playing with their grade. This makes no sense accoring to rae there's no reason one type of Aug birthday is any differnet than another.

With September 1 being a prevalent starting school date there are more August kids as the youngest in their grade than oldest.

Thats not how rae works.

rae is purely defined by date. Grade in school isnt applicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

Whoever you're argueing with is just going to keep changing their responses to fit their narrative.

Your continued argu(e)ment spelling gives away your parroting.

I agree you do that a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

For competitive clubs, nobody gets to play up (except National teamers which would be skewed towards Jan-May) and July, June and May will on average struggle for top team slots in SY like Oct, Nov and Dec struggled under BY. So nobody is likely to play up because the top team slots are taken by the older player birthdates in the age group.

That makes no sense. Now because you refuse to admit the obvious you're mixing BY into SY. You also added that only National Team players would be the only ones play up which was not written or defined anywhere.

So slimy just admit the truth.

It's over. ECNL didn't want players playing up except in very rare circumstances on a case by case basis and teams agreed. 9 to 1.

I went back and listened to the ECNL podcast and I dont think your interpretation is correct. It sounded to me that Lavars didnt want younger teams playing up a level. Which makes sense if you want to maintain the credibility of the league. I don't think he was talking about individual players.

9/4, "When I play a player up, I would say that player has to be not just a starter on the age group above but they need to be a major, major contributor and standout on the age group above."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

But Aug/Sept players playing up wouldn't be correlated with their actual grade because skill and maturity are the criteria so on the odd chance one does get to play up they are likely to be playing with kids in the grade above them.

Ok heres another mind bender.

Somehow you think grade down Aug players would be playing up more often than grade up players playing with their grade. This makes no sense accoring to rae there's no reason one type of Aug birthday is any differnet than another.

With September 1 being a prevalent starting school date there are more August kids as the youngest in their grade than oldest.

Thats not how rae works.

rae is purely defined by date. Grade in school isnt applicable.

Sure but Aug populations "on" grade and "off" grade aren't equal and playing up is based on skill, talent not grade based. Then the total number of Aug kids playing up an age group would be more likely to be playing up a grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

For competitive clubs, nobody gets to play up (except National teamers which would be skewed towards Jan-May) and July, June and May will on average struggle for top team slots in SY like Oct, Nov and Dec struggled under BY. So nobody is likely to play up because the top team slots are taken by the older player birthdates in the age group.

That makes no sense. Now because you refuse to admit the obvious you're mixing BY into SY. You also added that only National Team players would be the only ones play up which was not written or defined anywhere.

So slimy just admit the truth.

It's over. ECNL didn't want players playing up except in very rare circumstances on a case by case basis and teams agreed. 9 to 1.

I went back and listened to the ECNL podcast and I dont think your interpretation is correct. It sounded to me that Lavars didnt want younger teams playing up a level. Which makes sense if you want to maintain the credibility of the league. I don't think he was talking about individual players.

9/4, "When I play a player up, I would say that player has to be not just a starter on the age group above but they need to be a major, major contributor and standout on the age group above."

This is fun. I read through the transcript and here is where they talked about playing by grade + on the B team if you didnt make the A team....

"Speaker 2: 24:31
The same decisions and the same conversations that we will have to. So. So, but because we just addressed what I would, uh, consider the cleanest, simplest example an older age group of teams of like level, all right. Now you go down into a younger age group, you go from u8 to u9, u9 to u10, something like that. I think that's a slightly different issue because there's going to be more peer group issues. Potentially there's more social issues because the kids are younger. That complicates it. But then you also look at most clubs. Most bigger clubs have multiple levels of teams, right? So in theory you can apply resistance by moving them up a level. So you go from the age group you know 13 to the second team."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

For competitive clubs, nobody gets to play up (except National teamers which would be skewed towards Jan-May) and July, June and May will on average struggle for top team slots in SY like Oct, Nov and Dec struggled under BY. So nobody is likely to play up because the top team slots are taken by the older player birthdates in the age group.

That makes no sense. Now because you refuse to admit the obvious you're mixing BY into SY. You also added that only National Team players would be the only ones play up which was not written or defined anywhere.

So slimy just admit the truth.

It's over. ECNL didn't want players playing up except in very rare circumstances on a case by case basis and teams agreed. 9 to 1.

I went back and listened to the ECNL podcast and I dont think your interpretation is correct. It sounded to me that Lavars didnt want younger teams playing up a level. Which makes sense if you want to maintain the credibility of the league. I don't think he was talking about individual players.

9/4, "When I play a player up, I would say that player has to be not just a starter on the age group above but they need to be a major, major contributor and standout on the age group above."

This is fun. I read through the transcript and here is where they talked about playing by grade + on the B team if you didnt make the A team....

"Speaker 2: 24:31
The same decisions and the same conversations that we will have to. So. So, but because we just addressed what I would, uh, consider the cleanest, simplest example an older age group of teams of like level, all right. Now you go down into a younger age group, you go from u8 to u9, u9 to u10, something like that. I think that's a slightly different issue because there's going to be more peer group issues. Potentially there's more social issues because the kids are younger. That complicates it. But then you also look at most clubs. Most bigger clubs have multiple levels of teams, right? So in theory you can apply resistance by moving them up a level. So you go from the age group you know 13 to the second team."

You need a more clear quote to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok so we're getting closer. It sounds like you admit that using rae logic that young grade older players would be in the group most likely to be playing up. Now just sprinkle a little club incentive to play young players with their grade for recruiting and boom. You have teams that are playing by grade.

No, this is where again you no knowing English as a first language becomes a problem with communication and could be why you are confused. Read the 9 clubs that say that playing up is rare and playing on age is their guiding light. Clubs go towards the oldest on each team. It's science.

Its funny how when you get backed into a corner you just strawman your way out. This time its knowing English other times August guy.

You believe in rae I outlined how it would affect teams. Now you're interpreting rare as never happening. When it could easily mean 3-4 "rare" players playing up per top team. Especially when recruiting for college is added to the mix and players are expected to play with their grade.

Its going to be fun watching you continue to say clubs wont roster by grade when ECNL player profiles are listed next season.

Older kids tend to get top teams, younger kids tend to get overlooked almost nobody gets to play up. So August kids have an advantage and July has a disadvantage under SY. Basic stuff.

So in SY because of rae August birthdays (followed by September birthdays) are the ones most likely to be playing up. Yes or No?

Yes

Wow finally a break through!

There was an admission that August and September birthdays because of rae would be the most likely to be playing up.

Now that we've established this another way to put it is that the grade up players playing down (Aug/Sept birthdays) are in the group most likely to be playing up. (with their grade)

But Aug/Sept players playing up wouldn't be correlated with their actual grade because skill and maturity are the criteria so on the odd chance one does get to play up they are likely to be playing with kids in the grade above them.

Ok heres another mind bender.

Somehow you think grade down Aug players would be playing up more often than grade up players playing with their grade. This makes no sense accoring to rae there's no reason one type of Aug birthday is any differnet than another.

With September 1 being a prevalent starting school date there are more August kids as the youngest in their grade than oldest.

No, this is why this whole discussion is silly. Tons of these Aug/Sep players were already held back and will be playing with their grade bc of that. I know more Aug/Sep kids that are the oldest in their class than those that are the youngest - both boys and girls.

[Anonymous]

Look we need to say it. August guy is right on one level: Playing on grade makes sense for recruiting. Where he's wrong is he thinks it's simpler just to force Aug-Sept kids to play by grade. Remember, it's a very small % of players that go on to play in college and we shouldn't have a policy based solely on that population. Besides, RAE shows us it's actually helps development to be the oldest and that to force kids to be the youngest actually would mean more of those kids would be among the first to quit, although a few would become really good players and be the exceptions.

In terms of top teams, top misaligned players -- and there'd be more of them if they stay misaligned at first, again thanks to RAE -- would in the end be among those who be good enough play up anyway once they get to HS for recruiting. I think that's why 9 out of 10 clubs we've found plans for have language that sets that up: You play up if you are good enough. Full stop.

Speaking of which, I think the best way to stop the focus on this part of the discussion is to stop engaging on this aspect of the topic period, so unless something new from a top soccer person/org comes out that's more definitive, I'm done adding anything here (so about third of the arguing by my reckoning will end -- my apologies for adding to the dumpster fire). Hopefully, that'll help lead to more productive sharing about what's actually happening at clubs.

In the meantime, good luck to all, especially if you have a kid in this world right now, that while sometimes is amazing to be apart of is all too often a toxic stew that resembles many an anonymous thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look we need to say it. August guy is right on one level: Playing on grade makes sense for recruiting. Where he's wrong is he thinks it's simpler just to force Aug-Sept kids to play by grade. Remember, it's a very small % of players that go on to play in college and we shouldn't have a policy based solely on that population. Besides, RAE shows us it's actually helps development to be the oldest and that to force kids to be the youngest actually would mean more of those kids would be among the first to quit, although a few would become really good players and be the exceptions.

In terms of top teams, top misaligned players -- and there'd be more of them if they stay misaligned at first, again thanks to RAE -- would in the end be among those who be good enough play up anyway once they get to HS for recruiting. I think that's why 9 out of 10 clubs we've found plans for have language that sets that up: You play up if you are good enough. Full stop.

Speaking of which, I think the best way to stop the focus on this part of the discussion is to stop engaging on this aspect of the topic period, so unless something new from a top soccer person/org comes out that's more definitive, I'm done adding anything here (so about third of the arguing by my reckoning will end -- my apologies for adding to the dumpster fire). Hopefully, that'll help lead to more productive sharing about what's actually happening at clubs.

In the meantime, good luck to all, especially if you have a kid in this world right now, that while sometimes is amazing to be apart of is all too often a toxic stew that resembles many an anonymous thread.

Spot on.

Let’s get back on track. I’ve got an Aug kid, top team starter at top club in a top league. She is old for her grade, so it wouldn’t be a “playing down a grade” situation, so that’s a good thing. The club hasn’t said anything official but the coach said pretty much what the other clubs have said on their website - kids will play in their age range and others will be evaluated to play up based on skill, etc., which is the safe and I think best answer and way to handle it. My kid, from the coach, is one of these kids that will be considered to play up. There are pros and cons to each but at her age (7th going into 8th) she would prefer to stay with the current team and move up to U15, but also understands and would be fine with repeating U14 if that’s what has to happen. I would prefer to just repeat U14 to get on track with kids in her grade for the next few years.

I’m sure there are a lot of other families in the same situation. We are in a large metro area with many clubs around so we anticipate a ton of movement inside the club and kids coming in from outside clubs. It’s going to be wild come tryouts but I trust it will all work itself out. I’ve just told my kid to be open minded and flexible because once the change happens, and kids get settled, it will be business as usual and like nothing really happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look we need to say it. August guy is right on one level: Playing on grade makes sense for recruiting. Where he's wrong is he thinks it's simpler just to force Aug-Sept kids to play by grade. Remember, it's a very small % of players that go on to play in college and we shouldn't have a policy based solely on that population. Besides, RAE shows us it's actually helps development to be the oldest and that to force kids to be the youngest actually would mean more of those kids would be among the first to quit, although a few would become really good players and be the exceptions.

In terms of top teams, top misaligned players -- and there'd be more of them if they stay misaligned at first, again thanks to RAE -- would in the end be among those who be good enough play up anyway once they get to HS for recruiting. I think that's why 9 out of 10 clubs we've found plans for have language that sets that up: You play up if you are good enough. Full stop.

Speaking of which, I think the best way to stop the focus on this part of the discussion is to stop engaging on this aspect of the topic period, so unless something new from a top soccer person/org comes out that's more definitive, I'm done adding anything here (so about third of the arguing by my reckoning will end -- my apologies for adding to the dumpster fire). Hopefully, that'll help lead to more productive sharing about what's actually happening at clubs.

In the meantime, good luck to all, especially if you have a kid in this world right now, that while sometimes is amazing to be apart of is all too often a toxic stew that resembles many an anonymous thread.

Spot on.

Let’s get back on track. I’ve got an Aug kid, top team starter at top club in a top league. She is old for her grade, so it wouldn’t be a “playing down a grade” situation, so that’s a good thing. The club hasn’t said anything official but the coach said pretty much what the other clubs have said on their website - kids will play in their age range and others will be evaluated to play up based on skill, etc., which is the safe and I think best answer and way to handle it. My kid, from the coach, is one of these kids that will be considered to play up. There are pros and cons to each but at her age (7th going into 8th) she would prefer to stay with the current team and move up to U15, but also understands and would be fine with repeating U14 if that’s what has to happen. I would prefer to just repeat U14 to get on track with kids in her grade for the next few years.

I’m sure there are a lot of other families in the same situation. We are in a large metro area with many clubs around so we anticipate a ton of movement inside the club and kids coming in from outside clubs. It’s going to be wild come tryouts but I trust it will all work itself out. I’ve just told my kid to be open minded and flexible because once the change happens, and kids get settled, it will be business as usual and like nothing really happened.

I think you're about to face a bunch of choices. First off, if you play up, you may only have a team for half of a season, since the rest of the team would be in 9th grade and presumably be playing HS (unless it's one of those teams that doesn't). But that could be solved if the club allows you to play on age during the HS season, although they may ruffle some feathers on the current team or they may welcome you back (or maybe a bit of both). So, if you want more stability/less drama, staying with the current team/age might be more preferable for you.

And I think you're right, once the drama of who is where is over, we'll be back to soccer.

[Anonymous]

Voluntarily trapped….


Hahahah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look we need to say it. August guy is right on one level: Playing on grade makes sense for recruiting. Where he's wrong is he thinks it's simpler just to force Aug-Sept kids to play by grade. Remember, it's a very small % of players that go on to play in college and we shouldn't have a policy based solely on that population. Besides, RAE shows us it's actually helps development to be the oldest and that to force kids to be the youngest actually would mean more of those kids would be among the first to quit, although a few would become really good players and be the exceptions.

In terms of top teams, top misaligned players -- and there'd be more of them if they stay misaligned at first, again thanks to RAE -- would in the end be among those who be good enough play up anyway once they get to HS for recruiting. I think that's why 9 out of 10 clubs we've found plans for have language that sets that up: You play up if you are good enough. Full stop.

Speaking of which, I think the best way to stop the focus on this part of the discussion is to stop engaging on this aspect of the topic period, so unless something new from a top soccer person/org comes out that's more definitive, I'm done adding anything here (so about third of the arguing by my reckoning will end -- my apologies for adding to the dumpster fire). Hopefully, that'll help lead to more productive sharing about what's actually happening at clubs.

In the meantime, good luck to all, especially if you have a kid in this world right now, that while sometimes is amazing to be apart of is all too often a toxic stew that resembles many an anonymous thread.

Spot on.

Let’s get back on track. I’ve got an Aug kid, top team starter at top club in a top league. She is old for her grade, so it wouldn’t be a “playing down a grade” situation, so that’s a good thing. The club hasn’t said anything official but the coach said pretty much what the other clubs have said on their website - kids will play in their age range and others will be evaluated to play up based on skill, etc., which is the safe and I think best answer and way to handle it. My kid, from the coach, is one of these kids that will be considered to play up. There are pros and cons to each but at her age (7th going into 8th) she would prefer to stay with the current team and move up to U15, but also understands and would be fine with repeating U14 if that’s what has to happen. I would prefer to just repeat U14 to get on track with kids in her grade for the next few years.

I’m sure there are a lot of other families in the same situation. We are in a large metro area with many clubs around so we anticipate a ton of movement inside the club and kids coming in from outside clubs. It’s going to be wild come tryouts but I trust it will all work itself out. I’ve just told my kid to be open minded and flexible because once the change happens, and kids get settled, it will be business as usual and like nothing really happened.

I think you're about to face a bunch of choices. First off, if you play up, you may only have a team for half of a season, since the rest of the team would be in 9th grade and presumably be playing HS (unless it's one of those teams that doesn't). But that could be solved if the club allows you to play on age during the HS season, although they may ruffle some feathers on the current team or they may welcome you back (or maybe a bit of both). So, if you want more stability/less drama, staying with the current team/age might be more preferable for you.

And I think you're right, once the drama of who is where is over, we'll be back to soccer.

That’s a good point about the high school season coming into play. That certainly changes the equation and just adds more things to consider. Fun times!