Reply to Huge ECNL News coming 7/1/2024

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Huge ECNL News coming 7/1/2024"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is this announced officially yet? Or is this the annual summer break gossip / buzz?[/quote]

it's coming.  it should be that all leagues will change back. [/quote]

What is coming? An official announcement? Or are you saying that the change is inevitable?

International play is birth year, recruiting is graduation year, it seems this buzz is about returning to the old 8/1 cutoff - which is neither, it just turns Q2 players into Q4 players and creates a new sacrificial lamb / trap player - albeit a convenient on for NCAA since coaches are too busy running their programs to actually keep a player on their radar for more than 18-24m.[/quote]

How does aligning the calendar to more closely align with a school year cut offs create a new trapped player? [/quote]

How does changing it from school year to birth year create a trap player?  :roll:

This is not a serious question. Until they’re all adults, there is always a trap set of players, the banding is all arbitrary.

Bio-banding, with all its flaws, and its narrow age window relevance, at least recognizes that and tries to account for the relative age with developmental milestones.

I promise the experts ENCL will use to justify the change have an equal number of counterparties in the other side of this debate. And in 10 years we’ll be repeating the cycle.

[/quote]

Yes seriously.  I'm not talking about the kids parents hold back but looking at everyone there will be less trapped players if the age groups are aligned to the school year calendar.   It's math not opinion. [/quote]

What is the math?

Are you referring to birth month distribution? If so you need to exclude older demographics and you’ll see that it turns August, September, October, into June, July, August, October with July and August being peak.

The 1990 study that spurred much of the relative age research doesn’t account for changing demographics, economics, geographic distribution, even climate change. A lot has changed, and birth month distribution has been flattening for the better part of 2 decades.

There is always a trap kid. You’re just arguing that on historical averages, (including boomers) for birth month distribution, there are fewer Q2 / Q3 births than Q1 / Q4 so the harm falls on a smaller number of children. One could use the same argument to say, let’s just shift the window so that the Q1/Q2 kids are in the trap, then the vast majority are happy….

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics