ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Flood ecnl’s inbox!

[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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will there be exceptions for next year? Thought this was supposed to help trapped kids but my Q4 2011 will still be trapped!

Everyone’s Q4 kids will still be trapped next year. Myself included. It was never meant to fix trapped player issue it was meant to align teams with their school grade.

It’s not the end of the world to be trapped do some private lessons hit the weight room and enjoy the calm before the storm. Theres a light at the end of the tunnel walk towards it.

[Anonymous]

Are they going to bring back U18 then? Last year they switched ages at the high school level to U15, U16, U17 and U19

So when this goes into affect… the August players that are U15 (2010s) will be U17 and only sophomores - but playing with Juniors. Then when juniors they play with seniors … when they are seniors they don’t have a team?

Frankly, at sophomore year it doesn’t matter if 2010 august kids play with juniors (they will in high school anyway)…what it does for the recruiting year is messed up but can be figured out if the player does the homework …if they don’t have a team as a senior that could be frustrating - especially the states that play club in fall and high school in spring.

[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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Not the same spot now the went from a Q3 to Q4 and have kids from the age group above them coming down.
Not the end of the world but how will it work if they get rid of U19s? When these kids are seniors?

[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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Not the same spot now the went from a Q3 to Q4 and have kids from the age group above them coming down.
Not the end of the world but how will it work if they get rid of U19s? When these kids are seniors?

The only u19 seniors will be August birthdays in states where the cutoff is 7/31 and the kids who were held back (supposed to be in college). They can combine to form a team their senior year, surely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

Amen to this. So many nasty and cruel parents. The best interest of the kids is completely lost in this equation. I believed that the leadership of the governing bodies could drown out the noise and cynicism and make a reasoned, rational decision that allows the greatest number of kids to play with their grade. Sadly, it appears they could not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Not the same spot now the went from a Q3 to Q4 and have kids from the age group above them coming down.
Not the end of the world but how will it work if they get rid of U19s? When these kids are seniors?

The only u19 seniors will be August birthdays in states where the cutoff is 7/31 and the kids who were held back (supposed to be in college). They can combine to form a team their senior year, surely.

Really? They can combine to for a team their senior year, surely? You can’t be serious. Some ECNL clubs aren’t even big enough to offer this when they have 5 months of trapped kids. How many clubs will offer it for only 1 month of kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

No…but likely held them back so they could be the oldest in the classroom and school sports…

So you’re for GY? Because that solves the problem then…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

Amen to this. So many nasty and cruel parents. The best interest of the kids is completely lost in this equation. I believed that the leadership of the governing bodies could drown out the noise and cynicism and make a reasoned, rational decision that allows the greatest number of kids to play with their grade. Sadly, it appears they could not.

Ok…it’s a sport. Relax. Sorry that the age change happened. If you’re so concerned then I’m assuming you’re for GY? Or does that not help your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

No…but likely held them back so they could be the oldest in the classroom and school sports…

So you’re for GY? Because that solves the problem then…

See earlier comment about ignorance and many, many, many earliest posts that mention the reasons why August (and July and June) kids are not sent to school even with a September "first potential start year". There is abundant evidence that these kids, for the most part, will do better IN LIFE if they are not the youngest in school. It's not about soccer, it's about maturity, discipline, decision making for life. I try really hard not to get into stuff like this, but really seems like you misunderstand the priorities of these parents (hint, it's not soccer).

[Anonymous]

Can we focus on facts and not feelings here? With no mention of accommodating trapped players for 25/26, how will clubs create teams in ECNL this tryout season? Our club had made it clear to parents they are creating teams that will lead to winning 25/26 season. They aren’t looking at anyone’s birthdate and giving more weight to sept-dec players that could help them the next season. So not planning for 26/27. Focusing on 25/26. Whether the strategy is right or wring, that’s their plan. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

No…but likely held them back so they could be the oldest in the classroom and school sports…

So you’re for GY? Because that solves the problem then…

See earlier comment about ignorance and many, many, many earliest posts that mention the reasons why August (and July and June) kids are not sent to school even with a September "first potential start year". There is abundant evidence that these kids, for the most part, will do better IN LIFE if they are not the youngest in school. It's not about soccer, it's about maturity, discipline, decision making for life. I try really hard not to get into stuff like this, but really seems like you misunderstand the priorities of these parents (hint, it's not soccer).

I'm fully expecting some way to petition to play down for kids who were on-time starts for kindergarten but would be playing with the class above throughout their soccer career. I think there's a lot of sympathy out there for this group. As seen here, however, I think many people are ready to tell truly redshirted kids that they must play with the class above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

A lot of schools start in August..and a lot of schools have an August cutoff date. there may be a few, although I don’t know of any, that start in July or have a July cutoff.

There is a difference between being trapped and intentionally starting your child late / holding them back.

Define a lot? But the Aug birthdays are in the exact same spot they were under BY….it seems like a lot of parents held back Aug kids and are upset that they can’t have them be the oldest kids on the pitch.

Oh right, these evil genius parents that 10-15 years ago saw this coming and thought, I'm going to hold my August kid back so they will be the oldest player in 2026 when soccer switches the registration. Not only is your statement ugly and cynical it's extraordinarily ignorant.

No…but likely held them back so they could be the oldest in the classroom and school sports…

So you’re for GY? Because that solves the problem then…

See earlier comment about ignorance and many, many, many earliest posts that mention the reasons why August (and July and June) kids are not sent to school even with a September "first potential start year". There is abundant evidence that these kids, for the most part, will do better IN LIFE if they are not the youngest in school. It's not about soccer, it's about maturity, discipline, decision making for life. I try really hard not to get into stuff like this, but really seems like you misunderstand the priorities of these parents (hint, it's not soccer).

As seen here, however, I think many people are ready to tell truly redshirted kids that they must play with the class above.

In other words, stay on the team they are already on.