Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new age rule going into effect seems like it is only benefiting the average or below average players and it’s a punishment to those that are the younger talented top players by keeping them playing the same year twice! How are they suppose to be challenged and grow if they are already better than the older kids on their team but also the opposing teams? How is this a positive change for those kids? We know if we stay where we are at our child will play up but if we move clubs then we are looking at likely having to play the same year twice unless the club makes an exception. It seems very unfair.

It can get even weirder...

Currently in BY Aug-Dec birthdays are playing up a grade at a higher level team. When leagues switch BY to SY most Aug-Dec birthdays will play on a team thats their grade in school.

However some Aug/Sept birthdays depending on when they started school will go from playing up a grade to playing down a grade on team with players a year younger then they are in school. Imagine that situation you're not repeating the season youre repeating the season twice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new age rule going into effect seems like it is only benefiting the average or below average players and it’s a punishment to those that are the younger talented top players by keeping them playing the same year twice! How are they suppose to be challenged and grow if they are already better than the older kids on their team but also the opposing teams? How is this a positive change for those kids? We know if we stay where we are at our child will play up but if we move clubs then we are looking at likely having to play the same year twice unless the club makes an exception. It seems very unfair.

It can get even weirder...

Currently in BY Aug-Dec birthdays are playing up a grade at a higher level team. When leagues switch BY to SY most Aug-Dec birthdays will play on a team thats their grade in school.

However some Aug/Sept birthdays depending on when they started school will go from playing up a grade to playing down a grade on team with players a year younger then they are in school. Imagine that situation you're not repeating the season youre repeating the season twice.

Anonymous wrote:This new age rule going into effect seems like it is only benefiting the average or below average players and it’s a punishment to those that are the younger talented top players by keeping them playing the same year twice! How are they suppose to be challenged and grow if they are already better than the older kids on their team but also the opposing teams? How is this a positive change for those kids? We know if we stay where we are at our child will play up but if we move clubs then we are looking at likely having to play the same year twice unless the club makes an exception. It seems very unfair.

Anonymous wrote:This new age rule going into effect seems like it is only benefiting the average or below average players and it’s a punishment to those that are the younger talented top players by keeping them playing the same year twice! How are they suppose to be challenged and grow if they are already better than the older kids on their team but also the opposing teams? How is this a positive change for those kids? We know if we stay where we are at our child will play up but if we move clubs then we are looking at likely having to play the same year twice unless the club makes an exception. It seems very unfair.

Anonymous wrote:This new age rule going into effect seems like it is only benefiting the average or below average players and it’s a punishment to those that are the younger talented top players by keeping them playing the same year twice! How are they suppose to be challenged and grow if they are already better than the older kids on their team but also the opposing teams? How is this a positive change for those kids? We know if we stay where we are at our child will play up but if we move clubs then we are looking at likely having to play the same year twice unless the club makes an exception. It seems very unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to finally put this thread to rest. We know everything we wanted.

ECNL/GA and majority leagues switching to 8/1. MLSN tier 1 staying BY.

What about the rumors of ECNL changing U11-13 to 9v9 and U14/15 dropping showcases for regional cups, U16-19 only competing in showcases.

Sounds like the rebirth of the USYS.

Good. Some sanity returning. Travel should be limited, and reserved for kids actually ready for recruiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to finally put this thread to rest. We know everything we wanted.

ECNL/GA and majority leagues switching to 8/1. MLSN tier 1 staying BY.

What about the rumors of ECNL changing U11-13 to 9v9 and U14/15 dropping showcases for regional cups, U16-19 only competing in showcases.

Sounds like the rebirth of the USYS.

Anonymous wrote:Is NCSL also moving to school year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to finally put this thread to rest. We know everything we wanted.

ECNL/GA and majority leagues switching to 8/1. MLSN tier 1 staying BY.

What about the rumors of ECNL changing U11-13 to 9v9 and U14/15 dropping showcases for regional cups, U16-19 only competing in showcases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone that talks about “athleticism” as a key factor in being on the A team and therefore being “better” knows next to nothing about the sport. It’s the American football / basketball mentality being applied to soccer. It’s one of the reasons our national teams suck and we don’t produce any elite talents.

On the girls side it's what college coaches look for.[u] Partially because aggression and power is a shortcut to wins and Partially because posession soccer takes too long and too much resourses to develop.

It's not that people dont agree with you. But if you were a first year college coach and your job depended on wins what would you do? Hint, the quickest way to short term wins is aggression and athleticism. Also the rules (infinite subs) encourages this type of behavior.

I agree with the above poster. We just had the women's NCAA championship match that featured Stanford (highly skilled) vs Florida State (highly athletic). Florida State won 1-0 off the prowess of a very athletic front line. While you may be angry that your player is of a normal or small size or despite all their hard work, they are being beaten out by taller, faster and stronger kids is understandable. It is a hard reality of soccer and most sports in general. Sure, there are extreme exceptions, but at the highest levels that a majority of these players will ever reach, athleticism seems to matter a lot. For every person who cites 'Messi' as an example a small player who really dominates the sport, I could give you 10 examples of players who are more athletic and also play at the pro level. We have a very dedicated family who raising a phenomenal goal keeper, she has real skill in the position. (And American goalkeepers are considered to be some of the best in the world partially based on their size and strength.) But both parents are under 5'7" and 5'5" ...despite how much training they will put this kid though, in the end athleticism will never pit that kid in the same circle as keepers who are about 6' foot tall.

Also, parents of younger athletes in smaller clubs seem to adopt this attitude. But that attitude changers once you get to a bigger club at the older age groups, most highly skilled players just become plain ineffective against much larger & physically stronger players.

This also dips into the world of the RAE believers. When players are young (pre 11v11) sure being the oldest and good coaches can translate into wins. However once you get to 11v11 it means less and less. For girls simply being aggressive will open doors. Also at the highest levels you start running into the freaks of nature that are 1-2 years younger but still dominate on the field. When this happens guess who gets picked first by college coaches? Its hard to explain this type of thing to youngers parents because if they didnt play at a high level its not what they're seeing on the field. They see the benefits of privates with the coach or expensive club camps on shooting or defense or whatever. Which btw is just a mechanism clubs use to identify parents with $$$ that pay.

Not trying to be negative but if youngers parents literally sat down and watched a college game it would likely change their approach and provide perspective.

You mean "rae believers" as in the intelligent people who actually read the academic and scientific studies with proven data conclusions?

Anonymous wrote:It’s time to finally put this thread to rest. We know everything we wanted.

ECNL/GA and majority leagues switching to 8/1. MLSN tier 1 staying BY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone that talks about “athleticism” as a key factor in being on the A team and therefore being “better” knows next to nothing about the sport. It’s the American football / basketball mentality being applied to soccer. It’s one of the reasons our national teams suck and we don’t produce any elite talents.

On the girls side it's what college coaches look for.[u] Partially because aggression and power is a shortcut to wins and Partially because posession soccer takes too long and too much resourses to develop.

It's not that people dont agree with you. But if you were a first year college coach and your job depended on wins what would you do? Hint, the quickest way to short term wins is aggression and athleticism. Also the rules (infinite subs) encourages this type of behavior.

I agree with the above poster. We just had the women's NCAA championship match that featured Stanford (highly skilled) vs Florida State (highly athletic). Florida State won 1-0 off the prowess of a very athletic front line. While you may be angry that your player is of a normal or small size or despite all their hard work, they are being beaten out by taller, faster and stronger kids is understandable. It is a hard reality of soccer and most sports in general. Sure, there are extreme exceptions, but at the highest levels that a majority of these players will ever reach, athleticism seems to matter a lot. For every person who cites 'Messi' as an example a small player who really dominates the sport, I could give you 10 examples of players who are more athletic and also play at the pro level. We have a very dedicated family who raising a phenomenal goal keeper, she has real skill in the position. (And American goalkeepers are considered to be some of the best in the world partially based on their size and strength.) But both parents are under 5'7" and 5'5" ...despite how much training they will put this kid though, in the end athleticism will never pit that kid in the same circle as keepers who are about 6' foot tall.

Also, parents of younger athletes in smaller clubs seem to adopt this attitude. But that attitude changers once you get to a bigger club at the older age groups, most highly skilled players just become plain ineffective against much larger & physically stronger players.

This also dips into the world of the RAE believers. When players are young (pre 11v11) sure being the oldest and good coaches can translate into wins. However once you get to 11v11 it means less and less. For girls simply being aggressive will open doors. Also at the highest levels you start running into the freaks of nature that are 1-2 years younger but still dominate on the field. When this happens guess who gets picked first by college coaches? Its hard to explain this type of thing to youngers parents because if they didnt play at a high level its not what they're seeing on the field. They see the benefits of privates with the coach or expensive club camps on shooting or defense or whatever. Which btw is just a mechanism clubs use to identify parents with $$$ that pay.

Not trying to be negative but if youngers parents literally sat down and watched a college game it would likely change their approach and provide perspective.