Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

So all the Jan to May kids who have played within their age designation (birth year) are losers? Just like the Aug to Dec kids who end up playing within their age designation (school year) are losers? Good point. Those Jan - May kids should have been playing up all these years to be winners. Instead they’re just a bunch of losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Its almost like some people want to play against the highest level of competition possible. These are called winners

Other people want to play down against lower levels of competition so they can be the biggest and oldest on the team. These are called losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

You know final bosses only exist to be defeated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Ahh... So Puberty-Rae is the next excuse.

The good thing about puberty-rae is there's nothing leagues can do to address. Unless they want to implement biobanding. You could ride this excuse being a victim for a long time. You're so lucky.

I understand that you are overwhelmed with change and are lashing out at those you perceive to be stealing your lunch. And from the bizarre memes, it seems you are a kid. Just relax and finish your youth soccer career and don't use the age change as your excuse because nobody else is creating them but you. People on the other side of the fence will have empathy for you and your loss if you let them. Good luck

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if tournaments held over Memorial Day or later will implement the new age groups to allow new teams to play together.

Agree. Teams are using the World Cup as a made up reason to wind things down early and close the season out around mid-May. Then they can finish juggling rosters and get some practices in before a test run Memorial Day tournament where final roster decisions could be made for fall 2026.

Anonymous wrote:At our larger ECNL club at my sons age group U15 I would say the team below would lose at least 10 NL players to the RL may be keep 6 to 8 and those players left would be bottom portion of the roster. Maybe this isn’t everywhere but from what I see at our club in all age groups NL teams will mostly be dismantled to their top 5 or 6 players. RL players will take most spots and that doesn’t include outside players coming in.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if tournaments held over Memorial Day or later will implement the new age groups to allow new teams to play together.