Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are really trying to help the players, you have to move off of a yearly calendar. You would group players by their birth months.

So groups would be Jan-march, April-June, July-September and October- December. This would address the problems with the current system.

Look at the players birth month on your team. If you are on a top team it will run something like Jan-March 60%, April-June 25%, July-September 10%, October- December 5%

That would help some players but not others. For example, you'd be doing a disservice to kids with later birthdays who would benefit from and be challenged by playing with stronger earlier birthday kids.

At some point in this quest to make things as equal as possible based on age, you're going to run into individual differences that regrouping isn't going to solve.

No you miss the point. Right now the kids with the earliest birthdays generate the highest number of “top” team players. These kids because they are older have an advantage by playing on the “top” team x confidence and playing/practice time. This advantage is locked in once you are on a “top” team at an early age,

In reality each month should generate about the same “top” team players. The current system loses around 60% of the players with potential each class year just because of age difference. “Playing Up” in the younger years is not as beneficial as people think.

This is true - my son was a top player in England with a November birthday. When he came here at 14, all of a sudden he was at the bottom of his team. We had to move down a team level so he'd get more playing time and then work his way back up.

Anonymous wrote:This is where the anonymity makes it hard to have a discussion. The person/people who constantly saying "it's not happening" have just a good of guess as anyone else, but it seems like one poster is really digging in on this with absolutely nothing to back the argument up.

It's not worth rehashing all the prior discussion, but just take it for what it's worth - the ECNL President/VP both are heavily in favor of this change. We'll see how it plays out.

Exactly.. I'm not interested in a back and forth with someone who doesn't want to believe it's happening.

I'm basing my comments on what I heard on the podcasts from the sources themselves : Bracken and Lavers.
The podcasts are publicly available for all to listen and make what they want of them.

End of discussion.

This is where the anonymity makes it hard to have a discussion. The person/people who constantly saying "it's not happening" have just a good of guess as anyone else, but it seems like one poster is really digging in on this with absolutely nothing to back the argument up.

It's not worth rehashing all the prior discussion, but just take it for what it's worth - the ECNL President/VP both are heavily in favor of this change. We'll see how it plays out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Says so in previous podcast. They specifically said not this year but next.

24-25 is out not enough time. 25-26 would be hard. Based on when they moved the last time and when they announced that if they were going to do something it would be 26-27 but my guess would be an announment in 2025 that a change in 27-28.

I still say this is a hard no -- not going to happen.

It's the ECNL. They get sh!t done. It will happen 25-26. One year is ample time to pull it off.

Look this is not happening. It is not in that podcast. If it does then no way before 27-28.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Says so in previous podcast. They specifically said not this year but next.

24-25 is out not enough time. 25-26 would be hard. Based on when they moved the last time and when they announced that if they were going to do something it would be 26-27 but my guess would be an announment in 2025 that a change in 27-28.

I still say this is a hard no -- not going to happen.

It's the ECNL. They get sh!t done. It will happen 25-26. One year is ample time to pull it off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Says so in previous podcast. They specifically said not this year but next.

Where in the podcast? I listened to the whole thing, I will say I was doing other things so I could have missed it, but I heard the words "if" but I never heard anything saying the change was a done deal or happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Says so in previous podcast. They specifically said not this year but next.

24-25 is out not enough time. 25-26 would be hard. Based on when they moved the last time and when they announced that if they were going to do something it would be 26-27 but my guess would be an announment in 2025 that a change in 27-28.

I still say this is a hard no -- not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Says so in previous podcast. They specifically said not this year but next.

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

When in the podcast did they say this is happening? I listened to it but didn't hear this is the new rule. It's a discussion about how this is beneficial but no ruling that this is happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

If it's happening for next year, wouldn't they of told the clubs, so they can plan their teams accordingly during the tryout process?

It's happening next year as in 25-26 onwards.

Based on the podcast or is there some actual concrete evidence of this?

Anonymous wrote:My question is will exceptions be made so that kids can play "up" with their grade?

What about kids that are held back?

Any kid can play up if they're good enough. For example Mac Whitham and Melanie Barcenas play a year up on the US youth national team. I'm sure all the top .0001% play up today and would do so regardless of when the age cut off is placed in the year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are really trying to help the players, you have to move off of a yearly calendar. You would group players by their birth months.

So groups would be Jan-march, April-June, July-September and October- December. This would address the problems with the current system.

Look at the players birth month on your team. If you are on a top team it will run something like Jan-March 60%, April-June 25%, July-September 10%, October- December 5%

That would help some players but not others. For example, you'd be doing a disservice to kids with later birthdays who would benefit from and be challenged by playing with stronger earlier birthday kids.

At some point in this quest to make things as equal as possible based on age, you're going to run into individual differences that regrouping isn't going to solve.

No you miss the point. Right now the kids with the earliest birthdays generate the highest number of “top” team players. These kids because they are older have an advantage by playing on the “top” team x confidence and playing/practice time. This advantage is locked in once you are on a “top” team at an early age,

In reality each month should generate about the same “top” team players. The current system loses around 60% of the players with potential each class year just because of age difference. “Playing Up” in the younger years is not as beneficial as people think.

I believe I got your point. There's no disputing that top team kids are disproportionately older kids. However, any cutoff is going to be a balancing act between age effects and other factors that make stronger/weaker players. If you form teams by 3-month age groups then age effects will be mostly erased, but unless you are choosing from an absolutely huge pool you'll usually just end up with 4 teams that are mostly weaker because the "top" team players are actually spread across the calendar year if not perfectly evenly. At the extreme you could have a monthly quota system, where you pick the best kid from every birth month and call that a starting lineup, but is that what anyone really wants?

A better way might be to stick with teams over whatever age window is most convenient/least painful (e.g., Aug 1-Jul 31 year, but doesn't HAVE to be that), but take into account relative age when selecting players.

The best way might be to avoid locking out (or in) players at very young ages for any reasons including birth month. Have a relatively fluid pool where players actually do get moved around based on recent development level. But that seems to be what exactly no one really wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

If it's happening for next year, wouldn't they of told the clubs, so they can plan their teams accordingly during the tryout process?

It's happening next year as in 25-26 onwards.

Anonymous wrote:Latest podcast on this topic. Looks like it's happening for next year

https://youtu.be/gxJbk2nHRlw?si=GRNX0HdeDdPqh9Mw

If it's happening for next year, wouldn't they of told the clubs, so they can plan their teams accordingly during the tryout process?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are really trying to help the players, you have to move off of a yearly calendar. You would group players by their birth months.

So groups would be Jan-march, April-June, July-September and October- December. This would address the problems with the current system.

Look at the players birth month on your team. If you are on a top team it will run something like Jan-March 60%, April-June 25%, July-September 10%, October- December 5%

That would help some players but not others. For example, you'd be doing a disservice to kids with later birthdays who would benefit from and be challenged by playing with stronger earlier birthday kids.

At some point in this quest to make things as equal as possible based on age, you're going to run into individual differences that regrouping isn't going to solve.

No you miss the point. Right now the kids with the earliest birthdays generate the highest number of “top” team players. These kids because they are older have an advantage by playing on the “top” team x confidence and playing/practice time. This advantage is locked in once you are on a “top” team at an early age,

In reality each month should generate about the same “top” team players. The current system loses around 60% of the players with potential each class year just because of age difference. “Playing Up” in the younger years is not as beneficial as people think.