ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Will Ferrell is a July birthday, btw. There goes his youth soccer career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Yeah it’s been a real joy as the parent of two August-born kids to see the SY champions delight in the fact that my kids and others like them will remain trapped and unable to play with their friends/peers, denying them the very things they are so thrilled for their September 1 baby to experience (but no no no, not the August 31st “holdback”)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Yeah it’s been a real joy as the parent of two August-born kids to see the SY champions delight in the fact that my kids and others like them will remain trapped and unable to play with their friends/peers, denying them the very things they are so thrilled for their September 1 baby to experience (but no no no, not the August 31st “holdback”)

Neither SY nor BY people appear to want to allow unchecked redshirting. But given the sympathies regarding being trapped and playing with friends/peers, I think you'd find a lot more SY advocates in favor of exceptions for summer birthdays in situations which make sense (i.e., not just expecting a different set of rules for oneself than others without reason). I, for one, think it would be insane and unjust to not allow exceptions, at minimum, for August birthdays who began kindergarten in states with an 8/1 cutoff.

[Anonymous]

What if a kid stated school in a state with 8/1 but now plays in a 9/1 state?

No way to police this so it wont happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

I know of a couple of Sep.-Dec. kids that play up…I think it will be shocking to some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if a kid stated school in a state with 8/1 but now plays in a 9/1 state?

No way to police this so it wont happen.

This is just my opinion, but I'd allow that based on just a signed statement by the parents, strengthened by any evidence provided. Similarly, if a kid was born premature and held back to be in line with their expected due date, I'd allow that based on a signed parent statement. The sanctioning body could have a committee to review requests for exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Depending on reasoning in the request, they could request supporting documentation if needed. Of course there could be some instances of lying and abusing that system, but it would keep wide scale redshirting in check. If found to have lied in the exception application, you get a lifetime ban from that league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

I know of a couple of Sep.-Dec. kids that play up…I think it will be shocking to some.

Then they'll continue to play up. They're beyond regular age groupings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if a kid stated school in a state with 8/1 but now plays in a 9/1 state?

No way to police this so it wont happen.

They'll won't play down, unless it's under those current trapped rules or biobanding. Other than those exceptions, one thing soccer has been super strict is about the actual 12-month window and it's not surprising since the culture is to have your stronger players play up to whatever level they should be at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

I know of a couple of Sep.-Dec. kids that play up…I think it will be shocking to some.

Then they'll continue to play up. They're beyond regular age groupings.

I am sure at some point they will want to be judged against their peers, for whatever their future holds and the whole trapped issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

I know of a couple of Sep.-Dec. kids that play up…I think it will be shocking to some.

Then they'll continue to play up. They're beyond regular age groupings.

I am sure at some point they will want to be judged against their peers, for whatever their future holds and the whole trapped issue.

That's the thing, if they're playing up, their peers -- in soccer at least -- are older. If they play HS, they'll be that freshmen who plays on varsity OR they're the kid who only plays club. It's a different pathway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

I know of a couple of Sep.-Dec. kids that play up…I think it will be shocking to some.

Then they'll continue to play up. They're beyond regular age groupings.

I am sure at some point they will want to be judged against their peers, for whatever their future holds and the whole trapped issue.

That's the thing, if they're playing up, their peers -- in soccer at least -- are older. If they play HS, they'll be that freshmen who plays on varsity OR they're the kid who only plays club. It's a different pathway.

Not for college, and believe it or not some of them are actually undersized, it's a safety issue to a certain degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Its a much better spot for all Q1 players even if they need to learn a new postion or come off the bench.

It'll be good for them to get beat up a little, pays off in the long run, right Q4's?

It really won’t be much of a change for them. Many clubs even before this often had practices between age groups and when needing subs will pull up from the age below. That’s another reason why the drama is so overblown.

Over the last year, once the rumor started circulating that the age cutoffs could change, I've watched closely when my daughter scrimmaged/practiced with the teams ahead of her and behind her in age groups (which her club did a lot). Her club has at least 2 teams per age level and many first team girls considered best in the state. Second teams have big ranges between the best and worst players. This was over the U12-14 range. Here are my observations...

The movement in player pecking order depends a LOT on the style of player. If you are currently a high technical skill Jan-Aug player (be honest, not that many are), no one is taking your spot. Your skills will still play. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just out-sprinting others, you had better be really, really fast to maintain that advantage. Many "fast" girls are just average when they play against the girls just a few months older. If you are a Jan-Aug player who is just used to pushing people around, you are screwed. If you are a Sep-Dec player who is just a half step behind in fast breaks, this is going to help you a ton. There are many situations where "if you're not first, you're last," and you'll now be a half step ahead. If you are 3-4 steps behind, you'd have to go down two years to make up that gap. If you are a Sep-Dec kid who is tough in physical battles, winning a lot at your current age level, you are going to eat kids' lunch when you go down. The younger kids are scared of you. Many of these Sep-Dec kids spent their U8-U11 years getting their courage up to go hard against bigger, older girls. They either overcame that fear or quit. They play without fear against the younger girls, enjoying that they can mow them down, whereas the younger girls hesitate for 50/50 balls in a way they normally don't. The younger girls will get their bravery back, but it may take a couple years.

Basically, how this will shake out depends on not only what age range we're discussing, but also what player types we're discussing. A Jan-Aug player (again, talking about the U12-14 range) who has been out-competing people with just athleticism had better be truly exceptional in that regard to maintain their status. If you are skilled, with a high soccer IQ, you'll still be great, especially if you are currently *rarely* relying on your speed or strength to win. A Sep-Dec player who has been held back by being just a *tiny* bit too slow or weak is going to have a huge jump in status. If you are very slow or weak, you still will be very slow or weak with the younger group.

Agree. Most Q4 players I know are highly technical with a high IQ. I don’t know any Q4 players that are slow - they tend to be around average speed in comparison to their teammates. They do tend to be small.

Now they’ll be fast, average size or bigger, and highly technical with a high IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Agree…a few weeks ago BY parents were name calling at the suggestion that the change was coming…even referring to kids as “bottom feeders.” Now that the change is happening the BY crowd is clutching their pearls.