Get ready folks

[Thatonedad]

I wonder how much the US youth clubs focus on size plays into this equation?

The current USMNT roster couldn't be spread more evenly 6 Q1, 5 Q2, 4 Q3, 6 Q4.

Yes I think I mentioned that in my statement. At the National team level youth specifically they did not see RAE as a large issue. It was however very apparent in the majority of the youth soccer ages. Ages 10-18 I believe.
It falls back on the issue is BY best for “everyone” Rec up to academy. The data collected strongly says no. Which is why soccer operators have been able to get momentum for a vote. I believe ECNL even has their own collected data which I believe ECNL teams are around 70% Q1/2 U13-U17

 

[Carlsbad7]

I’m not pushing for anything? My kids would actually be on the negative end of a change. I was just speculating on conversations Ive heard nothing definitive in that statement.

Also the issue with the trapped players is they are younger and get the small end of the stick their whole soccer playing careers. Which is the thought process of US soccer club members and ECNL.

I understand that it is unfair if redshirt holdback is playing with freshman when they should be a sophomore but the way they see it is we already have that problem and a much larger level with birth year. As well as many other problems with the birth year system.

You get very defensive when I’m just saying what I hear. Not telling you to personally attack you or your views.

It's not you...

However It does get annoying when there's a very obvious contingent pushing for SY only because it will benefit their kid.

If ECNL is able to get other leagues to switch from CY to SY so be it. I just hope if the change occurs everyone does it together so clubs preserve cross league play.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Yes I think I mentioned that in my statement. At the National team level youth specifically they did not see RAE as a large issue. It was however very apparent in the majority of the youth soccer ages. Ages 10-18 I believe.
It falls back on the issue is BY best for “everyone” Rec up to academy. The data collected strongly says no. Which is why soccer operators have been able to get momentum for a vote. I believe ECNL even has their own collected data which I believe ECNL teams are around 70% Q1/2 U13-U17

What data are you referring to?

You make wild statements with nothing to back them up.

 

[whatithink]

Yes, this is true and from what I understand the push is for new cutoff dates but I would not be surprised if ECNL goes with grad year for high school ages if it’s decided new cutoff off dates are better for the masses.

By the time kids get to high school the difference of a year or so isn’t as substantial as the younger age groups. If you’re playing at the ECNL level most of those kids can handle playing high school varsity soccer as freshman. I don’t think they would determine it to be an unfair advantage as that would imply others could not red shirt also.

If a kid in high school struggles playing against seniors as a junior/soph playing Juniors or seniors. They probably aren’t going to be recruited for college.

That depends on the puberty lottery and it certainly differs between boys and girls. A freshman boy will not likely be able to compete against seniors. I know my boy grew 7 inches and put on 50 lbs in HS. There's zero chance any freshman in his HS could compete with him physically in his senior year - he would have mowed right through them, ability being superfluous - and he was not "football" big by any measure. Either way, HS has always been different with any kid good enough, in the confines of that particular HS, being able to play.

Girls are different, but the puberty lottery still comes into play.

Irrespective, I assume they (ECNL, i.e. club ball) are looking to revert back to the prior system, where there was no such thing as red shirting, i.e. teams were determined by BD with the range being from 8/1 to 7/31, so there was no 16 yo vs 14 yo type scenario.

 

[whatithink]

What data are you referring to?

You make wild statements with nothing to back them up.

There has literally been books written about the relative age effect (RAE), its not a new concept, with data from multiple sports.

 

[CAZZZ]

It's not you...

However It does get annoying when there's a very obvious contingent pushing for SY only because it will benefit their kid.

If ECNL is able to get other leagues to switch from CY to SY so be it. I just hope if the change occurs everyone does it together so clubs preserve cross league play.

ECNL does not need to do cross-league play. Surf ECNL teams rarely, if ever, play against non-ECNL teams. ECNL prefers to do the GY to benefit their core customers (college coaches) at the cost of missing 1/2 of games against non-ECNL teams.

 

[Derek1800]

What level of play are these great kids being left behind because they were born Sept thru December?

So are your saying a player with "great instincts and talent" is too small and too slow and they are being left behind? What does that mean? They are not making the top team like ECNL for example because they are a 2010 player right now that is in the 8th grade?

So your telling me that a player is on 2010 ECRL team then if the rules change being the older kid on the 2011 age team would make them bigger and faster and they would then be on the 2011 ECNL team? I don't buy it.

Changing all this around for these "trapped" players is absolutely ridiculous. I think there are parents out there who have kids that are "trapped" and they are just excited for the rules to change because they will get an extra year of soccer and they are going to be able to move down a year in club and they think it will be better for their kid and increase their chances for whatever glory they are trying to obtain.

I guess you could count out any involvement in the national level system then because they are birth year based and there's no way (unless your a unicorn and you would already be in the pipeline) that this "trapped" player that just moved down a years level of team would then make the 2010 camp that's full of players that are on the club teams that are a year above them.

At the end of the day life isn't fair. We cant just keep changing the rules because of it.

You are making arguments off ECNL age groups which is the opposite of what I am personally concerned about from my experience. The problem starts a lot earlier than ECNL or ECRL and is more problematic at earlier ages. In my opinion, the biggest challenge above Pay to Play with US soccer is the lack of quality coaches. Even top clubs mentioned in this thread in my opinion have very few strong coaches. So when a club has at most 1 great coach per age group, the kids at U7-U11 suffering from RAE do not make the top teams at top clubs and thus continue to see "the gaps" increase due to lack of the same quality coaching if they even continue. Also at young age groups, playing with your peers makes the game much more enjoyable and increases commitment. This doesn't matter much if you are on a top ECNL team and is also unlikely to be a deciding factor.

I would be totally fine if they keep ECNL the same for current cohort and grandfathered in this change. The important thing to fix is the start of the funnel. Not an already biased funnel that is where it is today and near the end. I dont think that nets much change nor is where the value is at except for college recruiting (which I dont care much about).

 

[Thatonedad]

What data are you referring to?

You make wild statements with nothing to back them up.

I guess US club soccer has data from a study that was conducted by a third party contributor. It is all part of their power point they are currently using. It could be public info id have to ask? If I can get it I will post here.

In regards to red shirt players if ECNL goes GY currently in mlsn a January 2011 boy can play 2012s if he qualifies with bio banding. So the difference between him and a Dec 2012 kid is almost two years which has been going on for a while. Kids who graduate and goto college or junior college redshirt or grey shirt and play another year of ECNL U19 which again takes opportunities away from trapped players left behind. So you have juniors competing against college freshman. GY is my guess for ECNL grades 9-12. Idk if it will be immediate for fall 25.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I guess US club soccer has data from a study that was conducted by a third party contributor. It is all part of their power point they are currently using. It could be public info id have to ask? If I can get it I will post here.

In regards to red shirt players if ECNL goes GY currently in mlsn a January 2011 boy can play 2012s if he qualifies with bio banding. So the difference between him and a Dec 2012 kid is almost two years which has been going on for a while. Kids who graduate and goto college or junior college redshirt or grey shirt and play another year of ECNL U19 which again takes opportunities away from trapped players left behind. So you have juniors competing against college freshman. GY is my guess for ECNL grades 9-12. Idk if it will be immediate for fall 25.

So now there's deck with data provided to US Club Soccer with data that you/they want to relay.

As I said before SHOW ME THE BEEF or shutup. You might be correct you might also be making everything up. Nobody knows.

 

[Carlsbad7]

ECNL does not need to do cross-league play. Surf ECNL teams rarely, if ever, play against non-ECNL teams. ECNL prefers to do the GY to benefit their core customers (college coaches) at the cost of missing 1/2 of games against non-ECNL teams.

Surf Cup losing 60-80% of its participants is a lot of money to walk away from just so a small number players can play with kids in their school grade.

 

[Carlsbad7]

There has literally been books written about the relative age effect (RAE), its not a new concept, with data from multiple sports.

So let's play the RAE effect out if ECNL goes to SY and GA stays at CY.

ECNL players will go from Jan 1st birthdays to Aug 1st.

GA players will remain Jan 1st

Trapped GA players will get recruited by ECNL teams (because they can play down a year) and ECNL players that were formerly king of the hill with a Jan birthday will go to GA teams because they're now middle of the pack on ECNL teams.

 

[watfly]

There has literally been books written about the relative age effect (RAE), its not a new concept, with data from multiple sports.

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than I believe its irrelevant whether its BY or SY. RAE appears to be temporary and its not like kids that are born in the 2nd half of they year are left out of Club soccer. They might not be on the top team but clubs are still happy to take your money for the 2nd team. Whether your on the 1st team or 2nd team at 6-12 yo is largely meaningless for your MLS Next or ECNL opportunities as a teen. Also as Thatonedad said the RAE appears to disappear at the National Team level. The bigger problem with youth soccer is coaches preference for size over skill which I believe is a symptom of the "win now" mentality. To me changing the age cutoff is like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

 

[fms]

redshirting? it's the exact opposite for the top players.

look across the country or even locally and the elite kids are training up/with pros/Wave, going pro, or reclassifying and going to college early.

 

[Code]

So that's the farce... not everyone whose birthday fits into the 8/1-7/31 limits will share a grad year. In fact, a solid number will not. This will affect more than the "trapped players" and kind of insult some kids (ones held back, etc.) At least birth year is a level playing field and is a lot less confus

There are no rules about playing "up". Those players will have no problem as they can choose what is best for them.

 

[Code]

What level of play are these great kids being left behind because they were born Sept thru December?

So are your saying a player with "great instincts and talent" is too small and too slow and they are being left behind? What does that mean? They are not making the top team like ECNL for example because they are a 2010 player right now that is in the 8th grade?

So your telling me that a player is on 2010 ECRL team then if the rules change being the older kid on the 2011 age team would make them bigger and faster and they would then be on the 2011 ECNL team? I don't buy it.

Changing all this around for these "trapped" players is absolutely ridiculous. I think there are parents out there who have kids that are "trapped" and they are just excited for the rules to change because they will get an extra year of soccer and they are going to be able to move down a year in club and they think it will be better for their kid and increase their chances for whatever glory they are trying to obtain.

I guess you could count out any involvement in the national level system then because they are birth year based and there's no way (unless your a unicorn and you would already be in the pipeline) that this "trapped" player that just moved down a years level of team would then make the 2010 camp that's full of players that are on the club teams that are a year above them.

At the end of the day life isn't fair. We cant just keep changing the rules because of it.

Clearly you don't understand what is happening for the Trapped Players. Your post has multiple wrong assertions because you don't understand. Nobody is getting an extra year of playing. Your hype-focus on size and relative age on the team is not what any of this is about. Sounds like you are worried your player is going to get bumped off a team when other players come to play with their grade year.

 

[whatithink]

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than I believe its irrelevant whether its BY or SY. RAE appears to be temporary and its not like kids that are born in the 2nd half of they year are left out of Club soccer. They might not be on the top team but clubs are still happy to take your money for the 2nd team. Whether your on the 1st team or 2nd team at 6-12 yo is largely meaningless for your MLS Next or ECNL opportunities as a teen. Also as Thatonedad said the RAE appears to disappear at the National Team level. The bigger problem with youth soccer is coaches preference for size over skill which I believe is a symptom of the "win now" mentality. To me changing the age cutoff is like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

Ditto on the dog thing. I do think the 8/1 to 7/31 is a better date range for the reasons I outlined above, for overall engagement and college. NT will be fine either way and those players should be playing up either way.

The MLSN & ECNL opps are more a product of the puberty lottery at 12-14, with size and athleticism trumping everything else. I've heard multiple A coaches asserting, "give me an athlete and I can make a soccer player", which just highlights the coaching problem in the US and the ripple effect from that.

 

[whatithink]

So let's play the RAE effect out if ECNL goes to SY and GA stays at CY.

ECNL players will go from Jan 1st birthdays to Aug 1st.

GA players will remain Jan 1st

Trapped GA players will get recruited by ECNL teams (because they can play down a year) and ECNL players that were formerly king of the hill with a Jan birthday will go to GA teams because they're now middle of the pack on ECNL teams.

ECNL doesn't care about GA. GA can make their own choice. Players will still want to be in the top platform, ECNL, so middle of the pack ECNL is still the best platform for college recruitment.

 

[Code]

You are making arguments off ECNL age groups which is the opposite of what I am personally concerned about from my experience. The problem starts a lot earlier than ECNL or ECRL and is more problematic at earlier ages. In my opinion, the biggest challenge above Pay to Play with US soccer is the lack of quality coaches. Even top clubs mentioned in this thread in my opinion have very few strong coaches. So when a club has at most 1 great coach per age group, the kids at U7-U11 suffering from RAE do not make the top teams at top clubs and thus continue to see "the gaps" increase due to lack of the same quality coaching if they even continue. Also at young age groups, playing with your peers makes the game much more enjoyable and increases commitment. This doesn't matter much if you are on a top ECNL team and is also unlikely to be a deciding factor.

I would be totally fine if they keep ECNL the same for current cohort and grandfathered in this change. The important thing to fix is the start of the funnel. Not an already biased funnel that is where it is today and near the end. I dont think that nets much change nor is where the value is at except for college recruiting (which I dont care much about).

No need to Grandfather. The Trapped Players who are currently playing can just choose to keep playing with the group they are with. No rules stop them from playing up. If they have been with the group for years, or just want to stay for whatever reason, no problem, play "up".

 

[Code]

And I can guarantee that there will be a group of parents that say their 16 year old freshman should be able to play with kids in their grade.

Nice try, but this is not what is being proposed (what the rule was previously). There will always only be a maximum 365 day spread of age difference between the oldest and youngest player in the age group (unless a younger player choses to play up).

 

[Carlsbad7]

Nice try, but this is not what is being proposed (what the rule was previously). There will always only be a maximum 365 day spread of age difference between the oldest and youngest player in the age group (unless a younger player choses to play up).

I agree with you.

But there's always going to be parents who what to take things to the next level. What I'm highlighting is if ECNL switches to SY why wouldn't ECNL make it SY with no restrictions? If a player is going to graduate a certain year that's all that matters to recruiters.

See what I mean? It will start with Aug 1st as a cutoff. Then clubs will realize it's easier to just go by grade and not worry about Aug 1st.

This is one of the primary reasons US Soccer pushed for the change to CY 10 years ago.