ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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!

but why make things simple and easy? That's certainly way to much to ask of US Soccer...

Um…USSF did want it simpler. It’s all the Karen-leagues that didn’t. Don’t blame USSF for the mess. They gave up, BY or SY, because of the harassment from the members.

[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:

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.

Yikes. Must be tough being so bitter about other people.

[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!

This is some English major level back of the envelope logic.

Define affected…

[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:

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.

Yikes. Must be tough being so bitter about other people.

Must be tough realizing you can’t engineer your way into having successful kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget they said it's for 26/27!

I believe ECNL will have a transition plan for 25/26 season.

2 steps ...

step 1, ask coach to recruit good sept/Q4 players between now and then, not necessarily needing them to join the club this season

step 2, ask coach to tell parents of other birth months not to worry/not much will change/it doesn't affect you.

Step 1 is stupid. Coaches are going to take the best kids to fill the roster spots.

They don’t take a kid that isn’t as skilled but has a birthday that they like. They don’t do that with Jan babies in BY and they won’t do it with October babies in SY.

Roster spots are limited. You don’t waste them based on birthdate.

The issue with RAE isn’t birthdate based, it’s development based. Not sure why you people don’t get that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

prinmemo wrote:US Club Soccer also posted this announcement on X.

It just confirms what we heard over the weekend. Nothing new.

Can’t wait to see what these resources are going to be 😂 What a cluster f**k

A calendar and a notepad.

[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:

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.

Yikes. Must be tough being so bitter about other people.

Must be tough realizing you can’t engineer your way into having successful kids.

Again. Worrying about other people because you’re miserable. I get it. But it’s ok. You’ll be fine, buddy. Keep your chin up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

Mmmm….thats a big assumption. NL kids ares going to be bumping down too…it’s more likely that each silo bumping around in its own silo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget they said it's for 26/27!

I believe ECNL will have a transition plan for 25/26 season.

2 steps ...

step 1, ask coach to recruit good sept/Q4 players between now and then, not necessarily needing them to join the club this season

step 2, ask coach to tell parents of other birth months not to worry/not much will change/it doesn't affect you.

Step 1 is stupid. Coaches are going to take the best kids to fill the roster spots.

They don’t take a kid that isn’t as skilled but has a birthday that they like. They don’t do that with Jan babies in BY and they won’t do it with October babies in SY.

Roster spots are limited. You don’t waste them based on birthdate.

The issue with RAE isn’t birthdate based, it’s development based. Not sure why you people don’t get that.

Relative AGE effect has nothing to do with birthdate...what are you even smoking brah?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget they said it's for 26/27!

I believe ECNL will have a transition plan for 25/26 season.

2 steps ...

step 1, ask coach to recruit good sept/Q4 players between now and then, not necessarily needing them to join the club this season

step 2, ask coach to tell parents of other birth months not to worry/not much will change/it doesn't affect you.

Step 1 is stupid. Coaches are going to take the best kids to fill the roster spots.

They don’t take a kid that isn’t as skilled but has a birthday that they like. They don’t do that with Jan babies in BY and they won’t do it with October babies in SY.

Roster spots are limited. You don’t waste them based on birthdate.

The issue with RAE isn’t birthdate based, it’s development based. Not sure why you people don’t get that.

A skillful December 2010 kid playing ECNL RL has a great chance to be placed on an ECNL team after the new birth date changes have been put in place.

My son is a skillful late December 2010 ECNL RL player whose school team played a friendly against a 2011 ECNL team recently. He would be clearly the top midfielder on this 2011 ECNL that his school team played. His school team coach is also the coach of this 2011 ECNL team and he told me my son would walk into the starting lineup on this 2011 team.

Those of you that don’t think it will make a difference are kidding yourselves. All of the Q4 players that are still playing competitively at a high level at 13, 14, and 15 years will have a huge advantage with this change.

[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).

Do some research on how age cutoffs even came about and changed so much since the 60s / 70s. Some of the highest performing counties have school start following CY / BY. I don’t the the US with all 51 different systems, has a lock on getti no age cutoffs right. But our sports follow the broken system…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You also have 2-4 ECRL level Q4 players from inside or outside your club dropping down a year and bumping 2-4 ECNL level Q1-3 players of tosters in addition to the standard yearly shuffle. Clubs top teams are going to be substantially different next year with a trickle down effect.

Mmmm….thats a big assumption. NL kids ares going to be bumping down too…it’s more likely that each silo bumping around in its own silo.

No.

[Anonymous]

Podcast is up

[Anonymous]

Worst possible outcome for my August DS. Already has the deck stacked against him, and this adds one more thing. Really stupid.

April DD will be fine as she’s strong, athletic, and done growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget they said it's for 26/27!

I believe ECNL will have a transition plan for 25/26 season.

2 steps ...

step 1, ask coach to recruit good sept/Q4 players between now and then, not necessarily needing them to join the club this season

step 2, ask coach to tell parents of other birth months not to worry/not much will change/it doesn't affect you.

Step 1 is stupid. Coaches are going to take the best kids to fill the roster spots.

They don’t take a kid that isn’t as skilled but has a birthday that they like. They don’t do that with Jan babies in BY and they won’t do it with October babies in SY.

Roster spots are limited. You don’t waste them based on birthdate.

The issue with RAE isn’t birthdate based, it’s development based. Not sure why you people don’t get that.

A skillful December 2010 kid playing ECNL RL has a great chance to be placed on an ECNL team after the new birth date changes have been put in place.

My son is a skillful late December 2010 ECNL RL player whose school team played a friendly against a 2011 ECNL team recently. He would be clearly the top midfielder on this 2011 ECNL that his school team played. His school team coach is also the coach of this 2011 ECNL team and he told me my son would walk into the starting lineup on this 2011 team.

Those of you that don’t think it will make a difference are kidding yourselves. All of the Q4 players that are still playing competitively at a high level at 13, 14, and 15 years will have a huge advantage with this change.

You’re being biased and idiotic. A skillful kid regardless of birth month has a chance to make an ECNL team. You’re mistakenly substituting birth month for skill accumulation, maturation and athletic development and then applying that to an assumed static pool of alternatives. It’s not only bad logic, but it fundamentally misunderstands RAE and age cutoffs.