ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

This logic makes no sense. Currently any kid born Aug-Dec is not playing with grade level, rec teams. Now they got rid of most (80% by month) but not all of the problem is this worse? More kids will get to join the sport with classmates at the youth levels.

It is an improvement, albeit not perfect, over the current model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How is it dramatic? Instead of "2012" and "2011" teams they will now be "8th" and "9th" grade teams. They will be completeky different teams, maybe half the same players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Fair enough, but proportionally August is a bigger impact month both due to the number of states with 8/1 cutoffs and the prevalence of August kids that don’t start K right after turning 5 even in states with 9/1 cutoffs. The percentage of trapped kids would go down substantially with 8/1.

[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.

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.

There is no major problem with my stats. Of course a 9/1 cut off captures more kids in the same grade than a 1/1 cut off. The calendar year cut off was never about aligning grades. It was to align with international standards and to help the YNTs.

[Anonymous]

Would love to know what MLSN and GA are going to do and if they will announce.

[Anonymous]

Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This logic makes no sense. Currently any kid born Aug-Dec is not playing with grade level, rec teams. Now they got rid of most (80% by month) but not all of the problem is this worse? More kids will get to join the sport with classmates at the youth levels.

It is an improvement, albeit not perfect, over the current model.

Not an improvement for August kids. Why fix it for September to December but not August? Why trap them alone with the wrong grade when they so easily could have included them too? At least before August to December kids all had each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Thank you for stating this far better than I attempted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is no major problem with my stats. Of course a 9/1 cut off captures more kids in the same grade than a 1/1 cut off. The calendar year cut off was never about aligning grades. It was to align with international standards and to help the YNTs.

Yes there is a problem with your stats as pointed out above

[Anonymous]

No podcast this week?

[Anonymous]

What a waste of time. This topic is so dead lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is no major problem with my stats. Of course a 9/1 cut off captures more kids in the same grade than a 1/1 cut off. The calendar year cut off was never about aligning grades. It was to align with international standards and to help the YNTs.

Yes there is a problem with your stats as pointed out above

We can agree to disagree. This impacts more kids than you think. 8 states have school cut offs before 9/1. I do think some accommodations will be made for August kids. We’ll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is no major problem with my stats. Of course a 9/1 cut off captures more kids in the same grade than a 1/1 cut off. The calendar year cut off was never about aligning grades. It was to align with international standards and to help the YNTs.

Yes there is a problem with your stats as pointed out above

We can agree to disagree. This impacts more kids than you think. 8 states have school cut offs before 9/1. I do think some accommodations will be made for August kids. We’ll have to wait and see.

Oh I'm certainly waiting for more details because there will be exceptions for various leagues, but I really took issue with 41% -> 32%. That just wasn't an accurate assessment at all. Whenever the leaked stuff today is formally announced, the various organizations can start to put forth their specific plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without arguing about the cutoff month, the fact is this will completely change the team organization and makeup at every club. Will they all follow this rule for next year? If so, they will need to completely redo all of their teams and coaches by next month's April tryouts.

I just looked my club's ECNL roster, and it comes out to be 2.75 per team across all ECNL age groups. Not that big a deal to drop 2 players for each age to the younger team. No coaching changes needed for this reason alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No podcast this week?

When does it normally come out?