Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This has blatant falsehoods, unless you plan to produce verifiable data.

This is peak anon posting.

“Your post is blatantly false in my opinion, unless you show me proof, and in that case, I will reject your proof because I just don’t like your post, it offends my self-interest and/or preconception.”

Well, all you have to do is produce the easy to find proof from reputable sources showing that biobanding and relative age effect is a figment of the imagination and has no impact on selection in youth sports.

Then all those countries in Europe for example can drop their silly biobanding programs.

You brought up biobanding, that’s your issue, not mine.

Providing you research that’s easy to find on your own isn’t my job - google is an easy tool to help you find research on relative age and talent ID (ie. team placements) - you can go on your own path of enlightenment, since it’s clear you only listen to yourself.

Never said it wasn’t real. I said it’s effects are narrower over the long term, and the biggest issue of RA is people quit or don’t persevere due to their perceived (a perception or belief is a feeling, not a fact) disadvantage (and that is where you brought in biobanding…because ironically…biobanding is an attempt to solve this specific issue (keeping more players involved in a sport by giving them RA based competition vs making them feel left behind which leads to more drop outs) which you claim is “blatantly false” and you believe that I suggested was a “figment of the imagination”)

Are you stating the obvious that after everyone is past puberty relative age effect is less of an impact on the youth sports landscape?
Well Duh!

The issue has been and continues to be the data, numbers, facts, evidence proves late bloomer Q4 and Q3 kids are often left out of selection and elite prime development environments before maturation.

You do know the evidence collected is as simple as looking at birth months (most are born first two quarters) of players at elite clubs and academies which have proven beyond doubt for years late bloomers often get pushed out, left out.

Anyway this is a waste discussion, because you're trying to say your 1st quarter kid didn't have an advantage which goes against all logic, evidence and facts

I don’t have a Q1 athlete. I just understand relative age better than most.

Again, short term effect is totally legit. You’re right, we see it all the time (some of what is labeled as RA bias actually isn't RA bias though, it’s other parts of phenotype and heuristic biases). Long term RA is not a thing, distribution reverts to expectations.

The issue with athletics and competition isn’t actually admission into elite training, that is a short term side-effect. And pay for play in the US (across all sports) exacerbates that. The issue is the drop-out rate. It’s not even athletics this shows up in. Happens in academics.

I get a chuckle whenever I see families with their car decals of this gifted program or that gifted program and a Chess sticker too - it shows up extremely well in Chess. As the parents all congratulate themselves on how Chess demonstrates their child’s exceptional intelligence and superiority of their genetics, when in fact they just got off to an early start. In the long run it reverts and all those Q4 dumb-dumbs that stuck with chess and all the hard knocks they took earlier turn into huge assets propelling them ahead of the bumpersticker crowd.

Like I said initially - the biggest issue with RA is the lack of discipline and tenacity the athlete (and their environment - family) has in the face of the challenges: not being selected, faster competitive peers, more emotionally mature peers etc. The athlete, largely modeled by the parents and the environment, see those obstacles and permanent, unfair / unjust, and life-defining. They aren’t. And the athletes, especially those that have the support from their environment, that persevere (often this is seen in footy as “having a love for the game” despite the obstacles) tend to do just fine in the long run (and again - data…facts - this is shown in the selection for YNTs, Professional ranked, NTs, etc - where the RAE shows a reversal to the norm).

You can beat your assumption / grievance drum all you want. I just feel badly for any athlete that has you cherry picking excuses to temporary problems. As one of my children’s coaches told her years ago, Pity Parties are the most destructive actions in development.

It's unfortunate we have to filter through your cynicism and sarcasm to see you have some good points here and there.

You say it is temporary.
When the late bloomers are not selected to be with the best team, best coaches, best programs and best competition from U12 to U16 (temporary) ... how simple is it to keep pace with the missed elite development years so that at U17/U18 you are on the same level as the early bloomers?

Anonymous wrote:Lets reset the conversation. In the podcasts that kicked off all of these, the ENCL honchos clearly say changing the date back WILL NOT fix RA, just move the date.

What it will fix is trapped players AND the fact that RA PLUS being separated from friends and classmates seems to lead to more kids dropping out of the sport early on.

That's all! There is no fix for RA in this and in fact they also don't support biobanding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This has blatant falsehoods, unless you plan to produce verifiable data.

This is peak anon posting.

“Your post is blatantly false in my opinion, unless you show me proof, and in that case, I will reject your proof because I just don’t like your post, it offends my self-interest and/or preconception.”

Well, all you have to do is produce the easy to find proof from reputable sources showing that biobanding and relative age effect is a figment of the imagination and has no impact on selection in youth sports.

Then all those countries in Europe for example can drop their silly biobanding programs.

You brought up biobanding, that’s your issue, not mine.

Providing you research that’s easy to find on your own isn’t my job - google is an easy tool to help you find research on relative age and talent ID (ie. team placements) - you can go on your own path of enlightenment, since it’s clear you only listen to yourself.

Never said it wasn’t real. I said it’s effects are narrower over the long term, and the biggest issue of RA is people quit or don’t persevere due to their perceived (a perception or belief is a feeling, not a fact) disadvantage (and that is where you brought in biobanding…because ironically…biobanding is an attempt to solve this specific issue (keeping more players involved in a sport by giving them RA based competition vs making them feel left behind which leads to more drop outs) which you claim is “blatantly false” and you believe that I suggested was a “figment of the imagination”)

Are you stating the obvious that after everyone is past puberty relative age effect is less of an impact on the youth sports landscape?
Well Duh!

The issue has been and continues to be the data, numbers, facts, evidence proves late bloomer Q4 and Q3 kids are often left out of selection and elite prime development environments before maturation.

You do know the evidence collected is as simple as looking at birth months (most are born first two quarters) of players at elite clubs and academies which have proven beyond doubt for years late bloomers often get pushed out, left out.

Anyway this is a waste discussion, because you're trying to say your 1st quarter kid didn't have an advantage which goes against all logic, evidence and facts

I don’t have a Q1 athlete. I just understand relative age better than most.

Again, short term effect is totally legit. You’re right, we see it all the time (some of what is labeled as RA bias actually isn't RA bias though, it’s other parts of phenotype and heuristic biases). Long term RA is not a thing, distribution reverts to expectations.

The issue with athletics and competition isn’t actually admission into elite training, that is a short term side-effect. And pay for play in the US (across all sports) exacerbates that. The issue is the drop-out rate. It’s not even athletics this shows up in. Happens in academics.

I get a chuckle whenever I see families with their car decals of this gifted program or that gifted program and a Chess sticker too - it shows up extremely well in Chess. As the parents all congratulate themselves on how Chess demonstrates their child’s exceptional intelligence and superiority of their genetics, when in fact they just got off to an early start. In the long run it reverts and all those Q4 dumb-dumbs that stuck with chess and all the hard knocks they took earlier turn into huge assets propelling them ahead of the bumpersticker crowd.

Like I said initially - the biggest issue with RA is the lack of discipline and tenacity the athlete (and their environment - family) has in the face of the challenges: not being selected, faster competitive peers, more emotionally mature peers etc. The athlete, largely modeled by the parents and the environment, see those obstacles and permanent, unfair / unjust, and life-defining. They aren’t. And the athletes, especially those that have the support from their environment, that persevere (often this is seen in footy as “having a love for the game” despite the obstacles) tend to do just fine in the long run (and again - data…facts - this is shown in the selection for YNTs, Professional ranked, NTs, etc - where the RAE shows a reversal to the norm).

You can beat your assumption / grievance drum all you want. I just feel badly for any athlete that has you cherry picking excuses to temporary problems. As one of my children’s coaches told her years ago, Pity Parties are the most destructive actions in development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This has blatant falsehoods, unless you plan to produce verifiable data.

This is peak anon posting.

“Your post is blatantly false in my opinion, unless you show me proof, and in that case, I will reject your proof because I just don’t like your post, it offends my self-interest and/or preconception.”

Well, all you have to do is produce the easy to find proof from reputable sources showing that biobanding and relative age effect is a figment of the imagination and has no impact on selection in youth sports.

Then all those countries in Europe for example can drop their silly biobanding programs.

You brought up biobanding, that’s your issue, not mine.

Providing you research that’s easy to find on your own isn’t my job - google is an easy tool to help you find research on relative age and talent ID (ie. team placements) - you can go on your own path of enlightenment, since it’s clear you only listen to yourself.

Never said it wasn’t real. I said it’s effects are narrower over the long term, and the biggest issue of RA is people quit or don’t persevere due to their perceived (a perception or belief is a feeling, not a fact) disadvantage (and that is where you brought in biobanding…because ironically…biobanding is an attempt to solve this specific issue (keeping more players involved in a sport by giving them RA based competition vs making them feel left behind which leads to more drop outs) which you claim is “blatantly false” and you believe that I suggested was a “figment of the imagination”)

Are you stating the obvious that after everyone is past puberty relative age effect is less of an impact on the youth sports landscape?
Well Duh!

The issue has been and continues to be the data, numbers, facts, evidence proves late bloomer Q4 and Q3 kids are often left out of selection and elite prime development environments before maturation.

You do know the evidence collected is as simple as looking at birth months (most are born first two quarters) of players at elite clubs and academies which have proven beyond doubt for years late bloomers often get pushed out, left out.

Anyway this is a waste discussion, because you're trying to say your 1st quarter kid didn't have an advantage which goes against all logic, evidence and facts

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?

No if the unsubstantiated rumor were true it would only affect ECNL events/leagues. If an ECNL team does any other event (i.e. Jeff Cup), they'll follow the age group of the sanctioning body - so their non-calendar year players wouldn't be allowed to play with their team. What would be really interesting would be the Bethesda Premier Cup - it's a non-ECNL event hosted by an ECNL team.

It will need to be uniform across all platforms. MLS next probably can do whatever they want since they already shuffle based on the tournament.

What does shuffle mean here?
Isn't MLS Next (and everyone else) based on the US Youth Soccer calendar year?

yes but kids can play down a year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?

No if the unsubstantiated rumor were true it would only affect ECNL events/leagues. If an ECNL team does any other event (i.e. Jeff Cup), they'll follow the age group of the sanctioning body - so their non-calendar year players wouldn't be allowed to play with their team. What would be really interesting would be the Bethesda Premier Cup - it's a non-ECNL event hosted by an ECNL team.

It will need to be uniform across all platforms. MLS next probably can do whatever they want since they already shuffle based on the tournament.

What does shuffle mean here?
Isn't MLS Next (and everyone else) based on the US Youth Soccer calendar year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?

No if the unsubstantiated rumor were true it would only affect ECNL events/leagues. If an ECNL team does any other event (i.e. Jeff Cup), they'll follow the age group of the sanctioning body - so their non-calendar year players wouldn't be allowed to play with their team. What would be really interesting would be the Bethesda Premier Cup - it's a non-ECNL event hosted by an ECNL team.

It will need to be uniform across all platforms. MLS next probably can do whatever they want since they already shuffle based on the tournament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?

No if the unsubstantiated rumor were true it would only affect ECNL events/leagues. If an ECNL team does any other event (i.e. Jeff Cup), they'll follow the age group of the sanctioning body - so their non-calendar year players wouldn't be allowed to play with their team. What would be really interesting would be the Bethesda Premier Cup - it's a non-ECNL event hosted by an ECNL team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?

No if the unsubstantiated rumor were true it would only affect ECNL events/leagues. If an ECNL team does any other event (i.e. Jeff Cup), they'll follow the age group of the sanctioning body - so their non-calendar year players wouldn't be allowed to play with their team. What would be really interesting would be the Bethesda Premier Cup - it's a non-ECNL event hosted by an ECNL team.

Anonymous wrote:If this unsubstantiated rumor were true, how does it work for one league to be on their own cutoff which goes against the official national youth association?

Would a September 2013 ecnl kid be playing against December 2014 kids from other leagues?