Anonymous wrote:People actually get worked up over this? .001% of kids on this thread will go pro. Relax.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Most studies about rae are fron universities or funded by acadamies. The university studies focus on National teams the Academy funded studies are about finding talent. In both cases theres one top team usually grouped by age and no B team. This is why rae studies dont include B teams. Also B teams arent included because it diminishes the so called effects of rae especially if you follow B team players progress over time.

Just say no then. You couldn't find any studies saying RAE doesn't exist. Insightful that you noticed most studies come from universities. That's awesome observational skills.

Ok, no rae studies include B teams. Specifically because of the reasons posted previously.

Again, no have found no research has shown RAE does not exist so your statement that RAE doesn't exist and you saying others agree is false.

Correct I couldn't find any rea "research" that includes the affect of B teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Most studies about rae are fron universities or funded by acadamies. The university studies focus on National teams the Academy funded studies are about finding talent. In both cases theres one top team usually grouped by age and no B team. This is why rae studies dont include B teams. Also B teams arent included because it diminishes the so called effects of rae especially if you follow B team players progress over time.

Just say no then. You couldn't find any studies saying RAE doesn't exist. Insightful that you noticed most studies come from universities. That's awesome observational skills.

Ok, no rae studies include B teams. Specifically because of the reasons posted previously.

Again, no have found no research has shown RAE does not exist so your statement that RAE doesn't exist and you saying others agree is false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Most studies about rae are fron universities or funded by acadamies. The university studies focus on National teams the Academy funded studies are about finding talent. In both cases theres one top team usually grouped by age and no B team. This is why rae studies dont include B teams. Also B teams arent included because it diminishes the so called effects of rae especially if you follow B team players progress over time.

Just say no then. You couldn't find any studies saying RAE doesn't exist. Insightful that you noticed most studies come from universities. That's awesome observational skills.

Ok, no rae studies include B teams. Specifically because of the reasons posted previously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Most studies about rae are fron universities or funded by acadamies. The university studies focus on National teams the Academy funded studies are about finding talent. In both cases theres one top team usually grouped by age and no B team. This is why rae studies dont include B teams. Also B teams arent included because it diminishes the so called effects of rae especially if you follow B team players progress over time.

Just say no then. You couldn't find any studies saying RAE doesn't exist. Insightful that you noticed most studies come from universities. That's awesome observational skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Most studies about rae are fron universities or funded by acadamies. The university studies focus on National teams the Academy funded studies are about finding talent. In both cases theres one top team usually grouped by age and no B team. This is why rae studies dont include B teams. Also B teams arent included because it diminishes the so called effects of rae especially if you follow B team players progress over time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Can you find research proving the relative age effect with respect to soccer does not exist? You keep blowing smoke but provide no backing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

You missed the part that said "dont agree with it".

Also Ive never seen a rae study include B teams.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.

Can you find facts or research saying that the relative effect doesn't exist? Without that, you are a flat earther or someone who doesn't believe in man made climate change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which coach is picking the March kid who has bad touch, low IQ over the October kid superior in those areas?

Do you really want your kid with such a coach anyway?

Those touches and soccer iq are all because of rae. So is everything else.

The adults are speaking

Its rae's fault the adults are talking

We understand you don't believe RAE exists and there is no difference between calendar age and biological age and every kid are at the same maturation rate if they're born in the same year.
Even if they're 11 months apart

We understand you don't believe in any of that factual hocus-pocus

Oh god, its raes fault that I dont belive rae exists.

It's an infection in this country that people like this are so confident not only in their ill-informed opinions but proud of their lack of thought and nuance. People who refuse to listen to science or reason because it's either too hard for them to grasp, or contrary to their world view, or think toughness is all we need, are a significant problem. There is an aversion to understanding and fixing problems. They'd rather ignore or just let those affected deal with problems, whether it's the climate, or income inequality, or evidently, RAE. RAE is relatively easy to understand (you would think), but also hard to fix. I posited above that changing the cutoff from 1/1 to 8/1 doesn't change RAE because it's still a year but I liked the explanation of RAE+ because of school groupings.

You are the only one that sounds closed minded. Others understand what RAE is and dont agree with it. You dont understand why people dont agree with rae. Or you discount it because you dont agree with them.