Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

and who earns it? mostly the Q1 and Q2 players. Go ask any parent from an MLSN1 HG and ECNL-N team and they confirm guarantee

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

No, they give the spaces to the quality kids they want who earned it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

That's the problem. Coaches have no idea the birth months so they inadvertently favor the older kids. You hit the nail on the head. We have a huge coach problem in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its been the same person bringing up the rae super excuse for over a year. They'll just keep posing the same nonsense that the world is bad and they're always a victim.

The irony about rae is that clubs try their best to address it with B and C teams. The documented rae studies dont include B snd C teams because if you do suddently rae falls appart. When you point this out the excuse changes to B and C team coaches not being as good or not being able to play against as high of a level of competition. Theres never talk about getting additional touches in futsal or a Mexican league. Which often the A team players are doing which is why they're on the A team.

RAE impact is about kids not getting selected to the A teams because of delayed physical maturation

It's not about skills and talent or effort

I agree with you.

But watch what the rae people do. They'll use rea as an excuse and a weapon to get what they want. Which is their kid playing on the A team.

We're about to see this happen as USYS/ECNL/GA/MLSN2 shift to SY as Aug-Dec become the oldest AND perhaps Jan-Mar head to MLSN1 (if they can). The only excuses you'll be hearing are from the parents of the kids blame the demotion or the bench time on these new arrivals on being older OR only here because of the big change.

If you're born September 2nd and a mediocre player today in BY
You'll be a mediocre player tomorrow in SY

You ain't jumping from B to A because you're now Q1 or Q2 without A team qualities

A good part of A team qualities is being the oldest in the age group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

My kid's coach has no idea what month the kids are born until the parents bring cupcakes after a practice or game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Yeah I don’t think these people understand. The new system with different age cutoffs is more like gerrymandering. Also these are kids who change very often based on their rate of development, I’ve seen it with my older kids and their sports, within a few months they can go from bottom of B team to top of A level. They not fully grown professional athletes, and there are very thin margins in level/talent/maturity. Funny how some people behave on these forums, saying things like “if your kid is good enough”—wait a bit and it all changes. Just having them on an appropriate level for their development and having an equal age cutoff for all the teams in a club would be nice. Not too much to ask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its been the same person bringing up the rae super excuse for over a year. They'll just keep posing the same nonsense that the world is bad and they're always a victim.

The irony about rae is that clubs try their best to address it with B and C teams. The documented rae studies dont include B snd C teams because if you do suddently rae falls appart. When you point this out the excuse changes to B and C team coaches not being as good or not being able to play against as high of a level of competition. Theres never talk about getting additional touches in futsal or a Mexican league. Which often the A team players are doing which is why they're on the A team.

RAE impact is about kids not getting selected to the A teams because of delayed physical maturation

It's not about skills and talent or effort

I agree with you.

But watch what the rae people do. They'll use rea as an excuse and a weapon to get what they want. Which is their kid playing on the A team.

We're about to see this happen as USYS/ECNL/GA/MLSN2 shift to SY as Aug-Dec become the oldest AND perhaps Jan-Mar head to MLSN1 (if they can). The only excuses you'll be hearing are from the parents of the kids blame the demotion or the bench time on these new arrivals on being older OR only here because of the big change.

If you're born September 2nd and a mediocre player today in BY
You'll be a mediocre player tomorrow in SY

You ain't jumping from B to A because you're now Q1 or Q2 without A team qualities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its been the same person bringing up the rae super excuse for over a year. They'll just keep posing the same nonsense that the world is bad and they're always a victim.

The irony about rae is that clubs try their best to address it with B and C teams. The documented rae studies dont include B snd C teams because if you do suddently rae falls appart. When you point this out the excuse changes to B and C team coaches not being as good or not being able to play against as high of a level of competition. Theres never talk about getting additional touches in futsal or a Mexican league. Which often the A team players are doing which is why they're on the A team.

RAE impact is about kids not getting selected to the A teams because of delayed physical maturation

It's not about skills and talent or effort

I agree with you.

But watch what the rae people do. They'll use rea as an excuse and a weapon to get what they want. Which is their kid playing on the A team.

We're about to see this happen as USYS/ECNL/GA/MLSN2 shift to SY as Aug-Dec become the oldest AND perhaps Jan-Mar head to MLSN1 (if they can). The only excuses you'll be hearing are from the parents of the kids blame the demotion or the bench time on these new arrivals on being older OR only here because of the big change.

If you're born September 2nd and a mediocre player today in BY
You'll be a mediocre player tomorrow in SY

You ain't jumping from B to A because you're now Q1 or Q2 without A team qualities

What I'm seeing right now ... Aug-Dec A team players using leverage of leaving to stay on current team ... Meantime, top B team Aug-Dec players are now showing up at practices to start basically the tryout process, looking the part. What are you?

Looking what part?
Like B team players on a hope and a prayer?

They're ballin. They could make the team. This is still all internal, of course, so people coming in may also factor in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love for all the experts in here to explain what supposed benefits this change is supposed to have, because I don't see it.

Sure.

Before this change the vast majority of August-December birthdays WERE REQUIRED to 1.) play with kids a grade above 2.) be on the low end of the age spectrum for RAE, 3.) more likely to be smaller in size, and 4.) deal with trapped player issues in high school There was no chance for flexibility to play down.

With the new change a much smaller amount of August-September birthdays (the ones that would be considered young for their grade) MAY have to play with 1.) kids a grade below, 2.) be on the upper end of the age spectrum for RAE, 3.) more likely to be bigger in size, and 4.) deal with less severe "reverse" trapped player issues in high school. Lastly, there is flexibility to continue "playing up" with their grade level depending on the club.

I'm sorry your kid will fit into that small group that potentially gets hurt by this change (if your club doesn't let them play up). But multiply that by 3 or 4 times and you can see how bad it was for the vast majority of Aug-Dec kids before the change, who didn't even have flexibility.

The benefits of this are only the trapped player issue. This has zero effect on RAE except that it now gives the advantage to Q4 players vs. Q1 players. it's still a one year age group. In reality, it's a disadvantageous change for 3/4 of players that now have older kids coming into their age group.

I agree that “pure” RAE hasn’t really changed. However, I’d argue that the birth-year system created an RAE+ effect. Beyond the usual age-related differences, Q4 kids were often less socially and emotionally mature because they were a grade lower, they typically started organized soccer a year later (since many rec leagues use grade-based entry), and they were less likely to play with friends. That combination reduced enjoyment and hurt retention.

With birth-year grouping, Q4 kids faced a compounding set of disadvantages rather than just RAE alone. With the switch to the seasonal-year system, we’re essentially back to a “pure” RAE without those added factors—and in my view, that’s an improvement.

Stop with the nonsense "Pure" is something you made up and are trying to propagate. Rae affects littles and goes away as players get older. No matter how you slice an eligibility window someone is going to be oldest and someone else is going to be youngest 12 months is 12 months.

If you want to play at the highest level you need to drop the excuses and play with the hand your delt.

When one kid is two heads taller and has a mustache and the body of a body boulder already vs a skinny kid, who is fast and has good foot skills. Who do you think will win a physical battle?
You’re asking for someone to get seriously injured and possibly leave the sport after.
Soccer is not for everyone but at least give the Q4 players a chance.

We’re not God and kids grow at all rates and sizes. Philly Union has a U13 kid who can probably leg press like 500 lbs. The kid is built like a NFL running back. He has not been beat by any local DMV player yet. I am willing to bet he will not grow at the same rate later. But it is beneficial for my kid to go up against him and lose as my kid will problem solve, decide he wants to get stronger and make himself the best version of himself. That’s the point at this age imho.

Getting hurt is part of the game. Every kid is going to hurt. We just pray that it is not career ending when it happens. Jaxson Dart recently referenced soccer as soft and we need to change this perception. Put your kid in martial arts. You don’t have to be from the hood or trailer park.

If your kid leaves the sport by leaving MLS Next, that is a parent teaching and mindset issue. My kid knows at any point, he can drop down a level and be a superstar and I will still support him. He thrives on the challenge and competition so he chooses to compete.

FYI, I have two Q4 players.

Seriously have to wonder if some of these are real people making real posts

No, it just shows that none of you are playing MLS Next I and actually have a kid playing.

Real parent. Real kid. You just are proving why America is not great. Trying to educate but you actually justify mediocrity and excuses which is simply sad as an American.

It is actually not hard to make MLS Next I or ECNL. If you are struggling, you and your kid are probably not proactive. We have about dozen coaches in the area that will give you the blueprint to go pro and make it to D1.

90% chance the shutdown impacted you significantly as well. You don’t have a 1% mentality. Don’t criticize or be defensive. Recognize you have an inferior mindset to those kids and families who really don’t give a s—— what age the age brackets are.

You can view this as insight to change your weak a— mentality and improve or stay here complaining for the rest of your life. You’re welcome!

Uninformed, unintelligent, fake toughness is why America is not great. You seem to have made a large contribution.

They're trying to help you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its been the same person bringing up the rae super excuse for over a year. They'll just keep posing the same nonsense that the world is bad and they're always a victim.

The irony about rae is that clubs try their best to address it with B and C teams. The documented rae studies dont include B snd C teams because if you do suddently rae falls appart. When you point this out the excuse changes to B and C team coaches not being as good or not being able to play against as high of a level of competition. Theres never talk about getting additional touches in futsal or a Mexican league. Which often the A team players are doing which is why they're on the A team.

Another one of your misinformed lies

Every proper RAE study mentions 'B' and 'C' teams extensively (tells us you don't actually read)

They reference the fact that lots of talented late developers get placed on B teams which have lesser training and competition. So when they do finally catch up biologically, they are usually behind the kids who were continuously getting 1st team training and competition
If they didn't drop out.

But that's too intellectual for you

Every rea document ive seen relates to USYNT selection which is one team.

Ive never seen a rea study take B and C teams into account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main issue isn’t the particular age cutoff, some players will always be on the less physically mature side and eventually that will even out with hard work and athletic talent. But it’s the fact that this announcement makes it so it’s not apples to apples anymore. If you have Aug-Dec birthdays who are on MLSN2, say 2011 for example, and very close to MLSN1 2011s, and better than most of the MLSN12012s, if the age group change was consistent, many of these kids would make MLSN1. Now they are stuck being stronger players than the MLSN1 team at their grade level but unable to make the team because they were born in late 2011, but not quite mature enough for the MLSN1 the grade above with the other 2011s, and this gap may likely only increase since they now they will need to play down an age group on the second team, which will be a decreased level of competition, not the ideal way to get better.

It would be fine if everyone had the same age cutoff, but having a 5-month difference is ridiculous imo, especially if your club has both levels. It’s kind of like creating a new category of trapped players.

You're copying and pasting the same convoluted false equivalency nonsense from thread to thread

If your kid is good enough for MLS Next the coach/club is going to take him
They don't care what month he's born as long as he meets the cutoff criteria.

If he's not good enough for the team/club, he'll stay MLSN2

Gerrymandering works in Texas, not youth soccer. Give it up

You are all over the place. What the PP is talking about is the different cutoffs within MLSN create vastly different tracks for good Aug-Dec players and will be quite easy for them to get stuck on unless the selection process this spring has a crystal ball.

Good Players aren't worried about getting stuck anywhere

Again, you are too focused on thumping your chest for some strange reason. only 18 or so kids on MLSN1 team. If there are two players of equal talent, one born in October, the other born in March, nearly all coaches would pick the March kid. So the October kid is forced to move down an age category AND on a lower tier team, that is terminally bad for development and cannot be denied.

Not a single coach on planet earth has two similar players and make their final pick based on birth month

They usually drop down to other factors like discipline, punctuality, future potential, behavior at practice, parents behavior

Please stop reaching so desperately