Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

And this scenario is where it gets really interesting. Because they chose 8/1 as the date there are 2 months worth of kids that started on time where they live and now have this choice to make. You say none will play down with those in a lower grade than them, will they make that choice as willingly when they are no longer on the ECNL team and are dropped down?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Do you mean the school year team? If she’s good, then she probably will.

Yes! It's late and I'm tired. Hoping she'll be ecnl next year. There are so few q4 players on the top three travel teams in our experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Do you mean the school year team? If she’s good, then she probably will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

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.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.