Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ECNL Grade based?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    I have sons and they are not ECNL, but as you know this affected everyone .... I just want to say that this (birth year nonsense) was the worse experiment ever!! Lol. To be clear, it actually worked out well for one of my boys as he benefitted greatly by the change (just due to makeup of the team itself) and yet I still think it was the worst experiment ever. What a mess for the college recruiting process, etc. Just awful.

    Having said that, out of curiosity, can anyone come up with any reason why it has been better than grad year groupings? I'm really curious. By that, I already mentioned that it helped one of my sons from a team makeup, but taking that out of the equation -- in other words -- no individual reasons why it was better for your player, I am really curious whether there have been any pros to this little experiment in the larger picture.
    The only reason they did it was international players are grouped based on calendar year age. School grade isn't used abroad. USSF wanted to put US players on the same footing to combat supposed RAE.

    In an ideal world you group players based on skill, moving players up and down based on progression or lack there of. Obviously, very few clubs or coaches would be able to do that well. But the bigger obstacle is parents. Few would abide with their kids less skilled who most times will simply just be younger. Size can also be an important concern - do you want a lumbering slow giant playing with younger smaller kids? For the bulk of players age is an appropriate way to group kids and it can be done in a fair manner without little controversy, whether it be calendar or grade based. More skilled players can play up - and that is what would happen to the few players that would play internationally. They're not going to languish on an age based team for long.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Only pro is if you have an end of the year kid who can hang with the kids a grad year earlier. If they can, they will look appealing to coaches
      Apparently college coaches don’t see that. Thus far, the 2021 college commits on top drawer are almost exclusively on 2003 teams. The 2002 born 2021s who are hanging with the older ‘02 2020 juniors, are being passed over at shocking rates. It’s much easier to look like a stud on a 2003 team playing with and against 9th graders than it is to look like a stud playing with and against juniors. Despite college coaches understanding the difference, the optical illusion has statistically been overbearing.

      That said, I think the ‘02 2021s are being challenged more on a daily basis playing grade older girls who have a year more soccer experience (because they grew up playing in calendar year age groups). This will make them better players in the long run - though they may be getting passed over by college coaches who can’t see the forest through the trees. They might be able to transfer from their lesser college to replace the ‘03 2021s who looked so promising vs 9th graders when they were sophomores (or 8th graders when they were freshmen) but look much more average vs girls 1-3 years older and more experienced.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        Apparently college coaches don’t see that. Thus far, the 2021 college commits on top drawer are almost exclusively on 2003 teams. The 2002 born 2021s who are hanging with the older ‘02 2020 juniors, are being passed over at shocking rates. It’s much easier to look like a stud on a 2003 team playing with and against 9th graders than it is to look like a stud playing with and against juniors. Despite college coaches understanding the difference, the optical illusion has statistically been overbearing.

        That said, I think the ‘02 2021s are being challenged more on a daily basis playing grade older girls who have a year more soccer experience (because they grew up playing in calendar year age groups). This will make them better players in the long run - though they may be getting passed over by college coaches who can’t see the forest through the trees. They might be able to transfer from their lesser college to replace the ‘03 2021s who looked so promising vs 9th graders when they were sophomores (or 8th graders when they were freshmen) but look much more average vs girls 1-3 years older and more experienced.

        All 5 of them??? Settle down or you will drive yourself nuts. While I do agree with you on the fact that the end of the birth year players (I have one) are being compared to the kids a grad year earlier and it is tougher for them, you sound crazy when you use 5 commits as a basis of your argument.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Apparently college coaches don’t see that. Thus far, the 2021 college commits on top drawer are almost exclusively on 2003 teams. The 2002 born 2021s who are hanging with the older ‘02 2020 juniors, are being passed over at shocking rates. It’s much easier to look like a stud on a 2003 team playing with and against 9th graders than it is to look like a stud playing with and against juniors. Despite college coaches understanding the difference, the optical illusion has statistically been overbearing.

          That said, I think the ‘02 2021s are being challenged more on a daily basis playing grade older girls who have a year more soccer experience (because they grew up playing in calendar year age groups). This will make them better players in the long run - though they may be getting passed over by college coaches who can’t see the forest through the trees. They might be able to transfer from their lesser college to replace the ‘03 2021s who looked so promising vs 9th graders when they were sophomores (or 8th graders when they were freshmen) but look much more average vs girls 1-3 years older and more experienced.
          This is not been our experience. My daughter is a very late ‘01 who is a 2020 and she and three other late ‘01/2020s on her team were committed last year. They kept up with their ‘01s who are 2019s without any problem.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Apparently college coaches don’t see that. Thus far, the 2021 college commits on top drawer are almost exclusively on 2003 teams. The 2002 born 2021s who are hanging with the older ‘02 2020 juniors, are being passed over at shocking rates. It’s much easier to look like a stud on a 2003 team playing with and against 9th graders than it is to look like a stud playing with and against juniors. Despite college coaches understanding the difference, the optical illusion has statistically been overbearing.

            That said, I think the ‘02 2021s are being challenged more on a daily basis playing grade older girls who have a year more soccer experience (because they grew up playing in calendar year age groups). This will make them better players in the long run - though they may be getting passed over by college coaches who can’t see the forest through the trees. They might be able to transfer from their lesser college to replace the ‘03 2021s who looked so promising vs 9th graders when they were sophomores (or 8th graders when they were freshmen) but look much more average vs girls 1-3 years older and more experienced.
            "… Being passed over at shocking rates" easy chicken little

            a) Topdrawer is NOT an authoritative source. I know of 3 girls in the 02/2021 category who are committed and not listed. These 3 alone flip your stats but 8 isn't valid either. (min n = 25)

            b) It's not a race. One could infer that early commits get better deals, but it's not necessarily true. My current experience is that some 2nd Tier D1s are trying to jump the line and land commits early. The top-tier D1 programs feel some need to give appearance of following rules and are asking commits to stay quiet. Relationship with club bonds the commit.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              "… Being passed over at shocking rates" easy chicken little

              a) Topdrawer is NOT an authoritative source. I know of 3 girls in the 02/2021 category who are committed and not listed. These 3 alone flip your stats but 8 isn't valid either. (min n = 25)

              b) It's not a race. One could infer that early commits get better deals, but it's not necessarily true. My current experience is that some 2nd Tier D1s are trying to jump the line and land commits early. The top-tier D1 programs feel some need to give appearance of following rules and are asking commits to stay quiet. Relationship with club bonds the commit.
              Are you in the real world. All of those 2021 received full or almost full scholarships. The next round no matter who they train with will fall around half or below. Wake up.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                Are you in the real world. All of those 2021 received full or almost full scholarships. The next round no matter who they train with will fall around half or below. Wake up.
                Those that get full scholarships are unicorns. It doesn't matter what age they play with.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Interesting side note here is that the talked about eliminating the Relative Age Effect as part of the calendar year transition. Doesn't look like that's made any difference.
                  It was never intended to eliminate RAE. Nothing can. It was meant to make RAE more obvious to coaches and parents alike in hopes of limiting the affects of RAE.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    It was never intended to eliminate RAE. Nothing can. It was meant to make RAE more obvious to coaches and parents alike in hopes of limiting the affects of RAE.
                    How does it make RAE more obvious? I am sorry but if the coaches picking the US team can't see past grad year, how the heck would typical coaches see past birth year?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Are you in the real world. All of those 2021 received full or almost full scholarships. The next round no matter who they train with will fall around half or below. Wake up.
                      Dude, no one is knocking the 5 listed. Good on them. All that was said was those 5 are not the complete list, and the early wave of 2021s isn't over.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        They are switching to birth year

                        Comment


                          #42
                          They already are birth year!

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Get out of here really!!

                            Comment

                            Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                            Auto-Saved
                            x
                            Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                            x
                            Working...
                            X