Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
What if they add biobanding? |
Anonymous
GA will not use biobanding to solve trap player issues. It would be a joke to other leagues. GA is not stupid. They will not stay in BY just to please BY parents. It is a business, and switching to SY is the correct business decision. We can bet on it. |
Anonymous
| Hello? SY is not fixing trap players. The problem persists. Under SY kids will still be playing high school soccer and still be trapped because of the rigid 12 month date range. Soccer is so dumb. Other youth sports have figured it out and somehow soccer cannot. |
Anonymous
It still might be addressed. We need to see how state associations and ECNL handles it. At this point, 9/1 should be viewed as a starting point (That's not to say they won't end up being super inflexible -- but it remains to be seen). |
Anonymous
Yes we are waiting for ECNL info. But my sense is any flexibility for states needs to come from the national level first (US Club, USYS, AYSO). For example Missouri and Arkansas have made registration change announcements with no apparent flexibility and those are states with 8/1 cutoffs if I recall correctly. Not to mention the August grade split issue that is prevalent even in 9/1 states. Common sense and reasonableness should really rule the day here. |
Anonymous
|
My son is 8/2018 and he is playing travel with older kids now. That change will create some disadvantages for him long term being one of the youngest in the team. While somebody need to be youngest in the team and I see my responsibility as parent to give him all the resources to compete in that challenging environment for him.
My biggest concern that he is one of the youngest in the school with subsequent challenges, and now he will be the youngest in the team and need to go through that again. That is the only concern to switch from BY/SY - now Sep-Dec kids will have an age advantage in both school and sport, while June-August kids will need to overcome it academically and athletically. But that is fine, that is how you grow up a strong person. |
Anonymous
Good idea- I just sent her an email |
Anonymous
patricia.hughes@girlsacadmyleague.com |
Anonymous
patricia.hughes@ girlsacadmyleague.com |
Anonymous
Love it…let’s just harass people…that never backfires. |
Anonymous
Not completely fixed but the number of trapped kids will be reduced a lot from how it is now. Right now about 25% of kids are trapped (3 out of 12 month). That will become more like 8% (1 out of 12 months). Not exactly because there are outliers either way but in general there will be a lot fewer trapped players |
Anonymous
|
My understanding: Trapped players will be gone once we get to fall 2026.
Current 2011 players who will are 8th graders next year will still be treated as trapped for 2025-2026 — they will likely (if strong for their current team/starters) play where they have been and play as trapped players with the 2012s when their state has HS soccer (fall for MD and spring for VA). Clubs can then decide to continue to “play them up” in 2026-27. For the better players who are 2011 8th graders (U15), discussions will be needed to determine when they should drop into the school years appropriate team for recruitment. During our chats with the club’s technical director, we are thinking two “junior years” — once with her current 2011 team and then again the following year when she is an actual junior in HS — then she will drop down to the current 2012 age group — at that point she will be among the oldest on the team and will get a proper look during the recruitment cycle (and maybe have an advantage having been additionally looked at the year before). Anyone else managing the change to school yr this way? What conclusions are coming out of any discussions with your club? |
Anonymous
This greatly understates the reduction in trapped players, even if we end up with a Sep 1 cutoff with no exceptions. For simplicity, let's use the USYS statement's stated percentage of 68% being Sep 1 cutoff (they say school districts, but we'll use it as the population), and call the other 32% Aug 1 cutoff. Sep-Dec is approximately 33.3% of the potential player pool. Aug-Dec would be 41.7%. Currently, 0.68x0.333 + 0.32x0.417 = 36% of the potential player pool is trapped. After a strict, zero-flexibility change to Sep 1, not counting redshirts, 8.3% would remain trapped in 32% of the districts. That's 0.083x0.32 = 2.7%. So we're talking more like a reduction in trapped players from 36% of the potential pool to 2.7%. With some logical exceptions for Aug 1 states and other unique situations for August birthdays, we could get a lot lower than 2.7%. |
Anonymous
Well said…now get ready for the BY crowd because they are still foaming at the mouth…. |
Anonymous
|
It’s even less than 2.7% because the states that would have the issues are soccer hinterlands.
The real number would be closer to .27% |