ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha the 8/1 guy patrols this thread like a hawk.

It doesn't matter, if 9/1+30 isn't implemented 8/1 with a rule that Aug birthdays player aren't allowed to play down below their grade in school will be implemented. Which is the same thing.

Please cite a source?

Sure in 6 months when the SY details are relayed.

I know a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down will be implemented because its in both league and club interests to do so.

If this was true they would have kept 9/1 and allowed waivers to play with your grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha the 8/1 guy patrols this thread like a hawk.

It doesn't matter, if 9/1+30 isn't implemented 8/1 with a rule that Aug birthdays player aren't allowed to play down below their grade in school will be implemented. Which is the same thing.

Please cite a source?

Sure in 6 months when the SY details are relayed.

I know a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down will be implemented because its in both league and club interests to do so.

If this was true they would have kept 9/1 and allowed waivers to play with your grade.

No, unfortunately there was a bunch of meatheads that dont understand math or calendars that were threatening to pull out if they didnt get what they want which was 8/1.

Leadership realized that forcing them to do the right thing wouldn't work because they're stupid. So they went to 8/1 and will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down. Which is roughly the same thing as 9/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hahahaha the 8/1 guy patrols this thread like a hawk.

It doesn't matter, if 9/1+30 isn't implemented 8/1 with a rule that Aug birthdays player aren't allowed to play down below their grade in school will be implemented. Which is the same thing.

Please cite a source?

Sure in 6 months when the SY details are relayed.

I know a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down will be implemented because its in both league and club interests to do so.

If this was true they would have kept 9/1 and allowed waivers to play with your grade.

No, unfortunately there was a bunch of meatheads that dont understand math or calendars that were threatening to pull out if they didnt get what they want which was 8/1.

Leadership realized that forcing them to do the right thing wouldn't work because they're stupid. So they went to 8/1 and will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down. Which is roughly the same thing as 9/1.

I want this to be true, but I just don't see it happening.

[Anonymous]

So the best player on DS team is a Q4. I’m assuming he will be technically be playing up next year if the team stays intact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the best player on DS team is a Q4. I’m assuming he will be technically be playing up next year if the team stays intact?

That would be yes.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

ECNL leaders on podcast over a year ago were against this playing outside your age group stuff. They said that kids playing down in trapped year often dominated and were looked as gaming the system by even their own teammates and ruining the 7th grade year for everyone else. They also thought playing up should be limited to rare cases of single players not whole teams. Pressuring them to allow your DD to play down would reinforce their beliefs that parents are scheming to try to game the system to have their kid play down and artificially look better than they are.

Which is why they chose 9/1 over a year ago.

Then they changed to 8/1 opening the door to playing down.

Once they changed to 8/1 it opened the door to 9/1+30 again to address the cheating that was re-enabled.

Doors have been closed not opened for exceptions.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

So you agree that leagues and clubs will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down because it's in their best interests.

Good to know.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

So you agree that leagues and clubs will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down because it's in their best interests.

Good to know.

You unfortunately have a reading comprehension issue.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

So you agree that leagues and clubs will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down because it's in their best interests.

Good to know.

You unfortunately have a reading comprehension issue.

I realize you're going for the quick retort.

"Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools."
So why did they go with 9/1 at first?

Changing to 8/1 sure seems like an accommodation.

Not that it matters you think you know better.

[Anonymous]

What i like is that people are quickly realizing who's pushing for their own interests and who's trying to make things better for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What i like is that people are quickly realizing who's pushing for their own interests and who's trying to make things better for everyone.

I just can't wait for 26 and am pissed they delayed it so long. All arguments have been made in every permutation at this point.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

So you agree that leagues and clubs will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down because it's in their best interests.

Good to know.

You unfortunately have a reading comprehension issue.

I realize you're going for the quick retort.

"Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools."
So why did they go with 9/1 at first?

Changing to 8/1 sure seems like an accommodation.

Not that it matters you think you know better.

They stuck to 365 to stop self interested selfish parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What i like is that people are quickly realizing who's pushing for their own interests and who's trying to make things better for everyone.

I just can't wait for 26 and am pissed they delayed it so long. All arguments have been made in every permutation at this point.

So sad. 😭 Its going to be fun watching you cry in the corner. Unfortunately you're going to drop offline when you dont get what you want. Or, you'll pretend that you're on the other side to feel the wins.

[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:

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:Whomever is considered "older" in age groups get an advantage, but it's conferred over years to the point where the younger kids drop out by middle school. That's RAE.

In this switch for soccer -- which should be studied by experts who track these trends -- has a large group of players who have received those RAE benefits to put them %-wise at the top of the sport. Now that those players get to play up against slightly older players where the volume of competitors are currently playing at a lower level. Will 6 months really matter?

The Q4 kids that have been playing against players that are almost one year older have been able to play at a high level despite these advantages. It is well documented that Q4s that are still playing competitively at 14, 15, and 16 years old end up outperforming their peers over the medium to long term.

The Q4s that play at a high level find ways to perform well that compensate for their physical disadvantages. On average, they’re technically and tactically superior because otherwise they couldn’t cut it. Even physically, they fight harder to not be so far behind.

Then all of a sudden they’re the oldest players on their team. They’re physically advanced relative to their younger peers. They’re already technically and tactically more advanced than their younger peers.

So, on average, they’re now physically, technically, and tactically advanced. Big advantage.

All except those players, especially the better ones, might fight like hell to stay on their current teams, seeing that playing with younger players will stunt their development.

If this was true there would currently be a far greater number of January to May birthdays playing up. I guess by that logic all January to May players are currently stunting their development in a BY system.

That's because clubs limit these opportunities on purpose to reign in overly-ambitious parents. THIS tranistion, however, will be different, one-time where parents/kids will go nuclear because they've been on the same team for several years. Their arguments will win out, at least in the short term.

Not true at all, the players would be on a lower team of they played up an age group. They don't want to sign up for that.

We shall see. Depends on the club. This will be why they'll have to max out the rosters.

If you’re an Aug - Dec kid and your options are to stay on a team with a maxed out roster and maybe play some, or play on the “lower” team and play a lot regardless of roster, I wonder what the choice will be. If you have an Aug - Dec kid, unless you’re a true top player (probably not) or you’re already passed recruiting age, you’re going to be playing on the age appropriate team. Of course, if you’re at a small club that doesn’t have a lot of competition, then your chances of staying on the older team increase.

My daughter is on an ecnl-rl team with a q4 bday. I hope she will be on the birth year ecnl team next year.

Most olders will choose to do this. Might as well stay of a team with your friends.

Youngers will probabaly play down with no issues.

Not true. My DD is on an ECNL team and is a Sept birthday. She is in the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids. She will not play down because she will get lost in the wrong recruiting age for her grade. Plus, her friends are in her current team. She will choose to stay with her team. There are 6 other girls Aug birthdays or later that are is the same grade as the Jan-Aug kids in n her team. None will choose to play down unless they are in a lower grade. None. If you think they would rather have lay with lower grade kids, in a different age from their class recruiting age, or stop playing with the friends they have been playing with for close to a decade…

Unfortunately, most of them will not be able to stay in this team when Q3/Q4 from NL, GA, and RL compete. They will either be cut or on the bench side.

They are Q3. This is the problem with misalignment (and where SY60 guy chimes in -- but the ruthlessness of top teams means they won't care).

Ive decided to call it 8/1 with a rule not allowing playing down a grade. You know the same thing as 9/1+30.

Its funny how the mathematically challenged are just starting to figure out that Aug birthdays playing down a grade in SY is even worse than trapped players in BY playing up a grade.

That's why when they announced 9/1 to have the least amount of misalignment they should have stuck with that.

I agree. This was the intention of 9/1 unfortunately too many loudmouth morons started screaming for 8/1.

They should have done 9/1+30 (SY+30) and all of this would have been addressed. You could have even done 9/1+60 to address all trapped players and only field players in a certain grade at all games.

But a rule saying Aug birthdays arent allowed to play down with an 8/1 cutoff will have the same result. Its just more of an honor system about Aug birthdays playing down. Which in the end is all you really need. However at tournaments there will be "cheaters".

Since nothing has gone into effect yet there is time for them to fix this..... they probably won't though.

It's an issue that has an easy resolution but sports people arent known for being mathmagicians.

The quick explanation of what's going on is instead of having a single cutoff date theres a cutoff window of X number of days. The cutoff window allows school districts with multiple different school start dates to all work together in the same league and make all players on the field during games the same grade in school. The birthday months affected by the cutoff window range just need to show proof of grade on top of a birth cert.

Ironically if ECNL creats a rule under a single 8/1 cutoff that says Aug birthdays must play with their grade. Guess what players will need to provide if called out as ceating by playing down a grade. Thats right a birth cert and proof of grade in school.

It ends up being the same thing as SY+30 just instead of being proactive about not allowing Aug birthdays to play down you're being reactive not allowing Aug birthdays to play down.

However that wouldn't work. Carding systems realistically would struggle mightily to track at what age kids entered what school districts and what the age rules where for that specific school district at that time. They don't issue a specific document when they start school like when they are born so this would not be doable. People move, some schools are fluid on grades and then there is homeschooling. Just not a well thought out idea.

It's fine

Birth certs come in all kinds of formats.

Proof of grade can be anything. Its only important that a players grade is defined. Once defined you cant go back and switch it without league approval.

Again it doesnt matter because leagues are very likely to implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down in 8/1 single date cutoff. This is because its in everyone's best interest to have all players in a game the same grade in school. If theres a rule not allowing Aug playing down if a player gets accused of "cheating" they'll need a birth cert and proof of grade. THE SAME THING AS SY+30

Why would a league care what grade a kid is in?

Because college recruiters will know when watching a game that all players they see will be graduating a certain year. Ie available to be recruited.

Imagine if you were a college recruiter watching a team that you thought were all Sophomores in HS. There's one player tearing it up with multiple goals. You asked the coach about them and the reveal that the player you thought was amazing is playing down a grade and is actually a Junior in HS. How do you judge this? Are the good because they're just good or are the good because they're just older? How do you justify going after this player when theres other Juniors that are playing with their grade that could also likely tear it up if they were playing down?

This is the issue with playing down + olders.

Ohh I agree with this. That's why 9/1 or 10/1 +x would solve this. But unless US soccer is going to create a system that addresses this a league isn't going to care. The only leagues that care will be the ones selling college recruitment. And even then they wouldn't care until they oldest ages at which point they would go straight grad year instead of an age band plus grade.

This plus system only solves this if it is like plus 365. That's why it is more fair to have age groups that are only 365 days without exceptions, even for the holdbacks.

9/1+30 Holdback or exceptions as you call them can only occur between 9/1 and 8/1 of that year and only with proof of grade.

See how it works? You get a 365 window, no playing down, and no trapped players.

That is more than 365. It is 365 plus 30 or 60.

Don't see an issue here. Biobanding is 365 plus 365. ECNL can do 8/1 + 60, that is only 365 plus 60.

Its not the same as biobanding. But i guess you could look at it as 365+365 vs 365+30

With 9/1+30 you're slightly increasing the eligibility window for qualified players to guarantee that everyone playing on the field is the same grade in school. (And theres no GY holdbacks)

I keep saying 9/1+30 because its easier for people to understand because its almost the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. But, the better way to implement would be 9/1+60 this would cover all school start dates across America completely eliminating trapped players.

It's not fair to let parents gain by letting their August DD play down if they didn't go to school on time vs someone who went to school on time but isn't allowed to play down. America should allow people to gain from shenanigans.

Im not going to argue with people that dont understand math or the general concept of a calendar.

Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools. Parents don't make the rules. End of debate.

So you agree that leagues and clubs will implement a rule not allowing Aug birthdays to play down because it's in their best interests.

Good to know.

You unfortunately have a reading comprehension issue.

I realize you're going for the quick retort.

"Most school districts have 9/1 as a cutoff. US soccer went with 8/1 to hit the bulk of the remaining schools."
So why did they go with 9/1 at first?

Changing to 8/1 sure seems like an accommodation.

Not that it matters you think you know better.

They stuck to 365 to stop self interested selfish parents.

That's fine BUT I think the real issue is people have raised here is about staying with their grade -- which means playing up. I think they'll find some clubs who be open to it BUT for competitive reasons few elite teams will (unless the player is a d1-level).