ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Let's all start the drumbeat ... Time to switch back to BY ... It's simpler!

Seems pretty simple to me. 12 month range that starts 9/1. Argue all you want about "fairness", but it's no more complicated than before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Let's all start the drumbeat ... Time to switch back to BY ... It's simpler!

Seems pretty simple to me. 12 month range that starts 9/1. Argue all you want about "fairness", but it's no more complicated than before.

No need to reason with the BY crowd…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Let's all start the drumbeat ... Time to switch back to BY ... It's simpler!

Seems pretty simple to me. 12 month range that starts 9/1. Argue all you want about "fairness", but it's no more complicated than before.

No need to reason with the BY crowd…

It's more people-resistant-to-change crowd. No worries, they'll join SY once it's in place!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

The deadline being 9/1 with 68% is also misleading for choosing 9/1. That just means those states say you have to turn 5 before 9/1 to start kindergarten - doesn't mean they have to. If your state has a 9/1 cutoff and your kid is born on 8-20, a parent might not want to send their kid to kindergarten two weeks after turning 5. So that is why the 8/1 would have been a wiser choice. if kids went to school from August birthdays, they can still choose to play with their class.

i don't believe people are plotting at 4 years old if they should hold their kid back for sports.

[Anonymous]

Just looking at MLS teams youth academys and so many have and ECNL to MLSN pathway for boys. Surely all of these issues have been addressed.

[Anonymous]

So every soccer club is going to change up all their teams for next year by the time spring tryouts start ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

The deadline being 9/1 with 68% is also misleading for choosing 9/1. That just means those states say you have to turn 5 before 9/1 to start kindergarten - doesn't mean they have to. If your state has a 9/1 cutoff and your kid is born on 8-20, a parent might not want to send their kid to kindergarten two weeks after turning 5. So that is why the 8/1 would have been a wiser choice. if kids went to school from August birthdays, they can still choose to play with their class.

i don't believe people are plotting at 4 years old if they should hold their kid back for sports.

But that’s what people claim soo many people would do if we went GY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

The deadline being 9/1 with 68% is also misleading for choosing 9/1. That just means those states say you have to turn 5 before 9/1 to start kindergarten - doesn't mean they have to. If your state has a 9/1 cutoff and your kid is born on 8-20, a parent might not want to send their kid to kindergarten two weeks after turning 5. So that is why the 8/1 would have been a wiser choice. if kids went to school from August birthdays, they can still choose to play with their class.

i don't believe people are plotting at 4 years old if they should hold their kid back for sports.

No kidding. It’s so simple and yet the decision makers seemingly couldn’t comprehend it. A real miss here. Hopefully they will have some sort of waiver option for the August kids. Email leadership and push for it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So every soccer club is going to change up all their teams for next year by the time spring tryouts start ?

That's a bit dramatic. Most teams shuffle a few players annually and this change will shuffle a few players. Remember kids can always play "up" if you really need to keep that great Q4 kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

The current group is based on a calendar year. It wasn’t meant to align with a particular school year. Same standard applies to everyone and the age range covers 2 grades.

Now we now have a grouping that is meant to align with a school year but doesn’t take into consideration 32% of school registrations while setting a national cutoff. Unbelieveable to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

The current group is based on a calendar year. It wasn’t meant to align with a particular school year. Same standard applies to everyone and the age range covers 2 grades.

Now we now have a grouping that is meant to align with a school year but doesn’t take into consideration 32% of school registrations while setting a national cutoff. Unbelieveable to me.

Major problem with your stats. "school registration" isn't the same as actually enrolled grade. This new date captures considerably more kids than 1/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

The current group is based on a calendar year. It wasn’t meant to align with a particular school year. Same standard applies to everyone and the age range covers 2 grades.

Now we now have a grouping that is meant to align with a school year but doesn’t take into consideration 32% of school registrations while setting a national cutoff. Unbelieveable to me.

Yup 💯. It defies all logic. Please please reach out to league leadership and ask for a solution for the August kids. I did this in January and got thoughtful responses from higher ups at AYSO and USYS and the chair of the U.S. Soccer Youth Council who all seemed to grasp the issue. U.S. Club Soccer and ECNL leadership never responded.

I am particularly shocked that AYSO and USYS would go along with this given the heavy rec contingent under their umbrellas. August bday kids will become absent from the sport entirely over time because they won’t even have an entry pathway for soccer with teams started by parents at their school for Kindergarten. Most kids start soccer by joining a team with classmates. It’s just awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 aligns with only 68% of school registration deadlines per that blurb. That is really not a great stat. Lots of kids will be in the wrong age group. They also say kids can always play up. Hence why you needed to go with the earlier date (eg 8/1) and kids can play up with their grade if they fall outside that 12-month period.
Who are these decision makers? They are clueless

Agreed, so disappointing. Really hoping for a waiver process for August kids to play with their grade. Making a decision that isn’t consistent with 32% of school registrations is an issue. That affects a lot of kids. If no exceptions are made, we will see a major drop of August kids participating in soccer at the younger age groups, which is sad.

41% were negatively affected by BY

The current group is based on a calendar year. It wasn’t meant to align with a particular school year. Same standard applies to everyone and the age range covers 2 grades.

Now we now have a grouping that is meant to align with a school year but doesn’t take into consideration 32% of school registrations while setting a national cutoff. Unbelieveable to me.

Yup 💯. It defies all logic. Please please reach out to league leadership and ask for a solution for the August kids. I did this in January and got thoughtful responses from higher ups at AYSO and USYS and the chair of the U.S. Soccer Youth Council who all seemed to grasp the issue. U.S. Club Soccer and ECNL leadership never responded.

I am particularly shocked that AYSO and USYS would go along with this given the heavy rec contingent under their umbrellas. August bday kids will become absent from the sport entirely over time because they won’t even have an entry pathway for soccer with teams started by parents at their school for Kindergarten. Most kids start soccer by joining a team with classmates. It’s just awful.

If it would have been Aug 1. Then we’d have a group of July parents talking about how their kids will be absent from the sport

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yup 💯. It defies all logic. Please please reach out to league leadership and ask for a solution for the August kids. I did this in January and got thoughtful responses from higher ups at AYSO and USYS and the chair of the U.S. Soccer Youth Council who all seemed to grasp the issue. U.S. Club Soccer and ECNL leadership never responded.

I am particularly shocked that AYSO and USYS would go along with this given the heavy rec contingent under their umbrellas. August bday kids will become absent from the sport entirely over time because they won’t even have an entry pathway for soccer with teams started by parents at their school for Kindergarten. Most kids start soccer by joining a team with classmates. It’s just awful.

So, 20% of states will have 1/12th of their kids affected or this is going to effect roughly 2% of players nationwide instead of the 40+% of players who were affected with Birth Year when it comes to playing in their grades?

Oh yeah, how AWFUL!!! I'm so shocked and outraged!!! THE HUMANITY!!!!! How will these people sleep at night!