ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does granfathering work anyway? What if a better player wants to play on that team?

The idea here would have been to phase in the change. Keep BY except say those starting with 4v4 or 7v7 and slowly roll it up. Doesn't help people upset over trapped seasons, tho.

Yeah thats DOA.

Yeah people keeping throwing that idea out there as if it doesn't have a billion problems.

99% of the pain related to this change is in the moment of change, just like it was last time. The only real opposition to this change* is related to the moment of change, but that disappears in 6 weeks time and is all fine. Avoiding short term pain by creating long term pain is stupid.

*I know there is real opposition by parents of kids who weren't misalligned with grades before but will be now and that sucks. The reality is though that this fixes way more problems than it creates and thats why they are doing it. No, I do not consider "teams will be broken up" to be a real problem. They get broken up all the time and for all your know your new team will be better stop whinging about everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

[Anonymous]

Again - pretty much all other youth sports have found a way to do school year registration with some flex to capture more kids in a grade that would otherwise be missed with a strict 12 month range. There are some challenges to that approach (eg extreme cases of redshirting etc) but on the whole it is functioning and those sports are thriving and in many cases growing. Youth soccer will suffer if they stick to this strict 12-month span which is clearly not going to work for at least 1/3 of American kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

All the whining about Jan/Feb birthdays isn't from those parents. It's from the people who complain about them and say their kids will now take their spots, imagining how they feel.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

There is ZERO evidence it improved our NT’s. It’s an anonymous message board nobody had “anterior” motives lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

There is ZERO evidence it improved our NT’s. It’s an anonymous message board nobody had “anterior” motives lol

I laughed so hard at that too…

Ulterior is the word that dumbass was looking for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Evidence? Or you just saying that because you have a kid who benefits from BY age range?

[Anonymous]

As the US Soccer statement all we are going to get from the age change information? I was expecting more info from ECNL but apparently US Club saying no changes until 26/27 means we all wait until then?

I wish a GA/MLSN statement would be released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the US Soccer statement all we are going to get from the age change information? I was expecting more info from ECNL but apparently US Club saying no changes until 26/27 means we all wait until then?

I wish a GA/MLSN statement would be released.

If they don't change from BY, would they need to announce anything? (Probably would make sense, tho, given that the other big organizations are changing).

FWIW, my understanding is that they will switch at least with the MLSN2 level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the US Soccer statement all we are going to get from the age change information? I was expecting more info from ECNL but apparently US Club saying no changes until 26/27 means we all wait until then?

I wish a GA/MLSN statement would be released.

Maybe that’s what it is US Club soccer said 26-27 so that’s it. But I am hoping there maybe some transition plan released by leagues/ECNL to have an idea about tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

A lot has changed in the relationship between Major League Soccer and US Soccer in the last 10 years. Especially in the last 5. Anterior motives and conflicts of interest have been common.

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.