ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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:

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.

That is what I find hilarious, they will be playing 3/4 of the kids on their current teams. If you listen to August parents, it would seem like they made an announcement that all August kids will no longer be able to play.

[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:

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.

That is what I find hilarious, they will be playing 3/4 of the kids on their current teams. If you listen to August parents, it would seem like they made an announcement that all August kids will no longer be able to play.

Correct! They are just pissed that they are now the youngest but it’s their age group

[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).

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.

It’s more complicated than that though. There are legitimate documented medical reasons why some August kids start late. I Hopefully there is a waiver process and certain exemptions can be made.

[Anonymous]

I’m new to all this mess …

Once we know officially that USYS, USCS and AYSO will move to SY, and because ECLN belongs to USCS, should we expect any announcement from ECNL joining SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m new to all this mess …

Once we know officially that USYS, USCS and AYSO will move to SY, and because ECLN belongs to USCS, should we expect any announcement from ECNL joining SY?

Last I checked, ECNL is simply a league within U.S. Club.

[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:

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.

That is what I find hilarious, they will be playing 3/4 of the kids on their current teams. If you listen to August parents, it would seem like they made an announcement that all August kids will no longer be able to play.

Correct! They are just pissed that they are now the youngest but it’s their age group

There are 7-8 states with an Aug 1 cutoff. There are some states that delegate cutoff to each district and many of those are 8/1 as well. It might be the age group they’re in now, but a lot of these kids were already trapped and will continue to be trapped even though they follow state or district cut off dates.

[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:

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.

That is what I find hilarious, they will be playing 3/4 of the kids on their current teams. If you listen to August parents, it would seem like they made an announcement that all August kids will no longer be able to play.

Correct! They are just pissed that they are now the youngest but it’s their age group

As a parent of two kids born in very late spring it’s hard to muster sympathy for redshirted June/July/August kids. Their parents held them back in order to gain a perceived advantage, and for the most part they have one. Now there’s a situation where they won’t have an advantage and they’re crying about it.

And before you come in and say you redshirted your kid for legitimate reasons… don’t even try to act like many parents don’t use the “they need another year” excuse without any evidence to try to make it so their kid can be the biggest and most advanced in their grade.

[Anonymous]

So when are they going to release the resources?

[Anonymous]

Don’t worry Aug families you’ll get grad year showcases. But will depend on the club if they want to let you go down to take a spot just for tournaments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to previous podcasts from ECNL and in January they had Mike Cullina on to discuss the history of the BY/SY registration, some interesting tidbits. At one point he was talking about the benefit of aligning club 9/1 registration with the YNT. Could you imagine if that happened?

It appears that is what England does, if you look at their U-15 roster the average age is 14.5 yrs old

But what does North Korea do?

Kidding…sort of.

People only go back as far as they want to justify their point. SY was the norm before US soccer took off in 99, that doesn’t mean it caused the launch.

It seems to me Gen X and Millenials are entering their full “in my day” and “it worked for me, so it will work for my kid” period of parenting.

Not advocating for BY, SY is fine by me. But the arguments supporting SY into tradition, prior results, participation, etc are all without foundation. They FEEL and SOUND right, but it’s all based on a limiting the window to fit the argument.

There is plenty of data to back it up and links to the literature have been posted here. Let me guess you don’t actually read anything, you just throw up straw men. Get out of here

You’re an idiot. The links don’t support SY. They support RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NPL is run by GA. There’s a big hint?

Used to be. GA is now a member of USSF. DPL is under USSSA, but is run by GA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when are they going to release the resources?

Since the press releases reference the U.S. Soccer resources, it’s surely very soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening to previous podcasts from ECNL and in January they had Mike Cullina on to discuss the history of the BY/SY registration, some interesting tidbits. At one point he was talking about the benefit of aligning club 9/1 registration with the YNT. Could you imagine if that happened?

It appears that is what England does, if you look at their U-15 roster the average age is 14.5 yrs old

But what does North Korea do?

Kidding…sort of.

People only go back as far as they want to justify their point. SY was the norm before US soccer took off in 99, that doesn’t mean it caused the launch.

It seems to me Gen X and Millenials are entering their full “in my day” and “it worked for me, so it will work for my kid” period of parenting.

Not advocating for BY, SY is fine by me. But the arguments supporting SY into tradition, prior results, participation, etc are all without foundation. They FEEL and SOUND right, but it’s all based on a limiting the window to fit the argument.

There is plenty of data to back it up and links to the literature have been posted here. Let me guess you don’t actually read anything, you just throw up straw men. Get out of here

You’re an idiot. The links don’t support SY. They support RAE.

Hahahah here we go Mr. Strawman, you are a pathetic individual that isn’t intelligent enough to have an actual debate on anything. I’m sorry soccer registrations didn’t work out for you, you can cry with all of the August parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NPL is run by GA. There’s a big hint?

Used to be. GA is now a member of USSF. DPL is under USSSA, but is run by GA

NPL and ECNL are both leagues within U.S. Club.

[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

“Kids can always play up” is true for rec.

USCS knows better though, it’s a false statement for ECNL and other national leagues. There is a huge incentive by clubs to NOT let kids play up even if they should / can.