ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Well said…now get ready for the BY crowd because they are still foaming at the mouth….

This comment is the only thing that’s foaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

The local league could give the exception if the schools start at 8/1. National league will be strict 12 months range whether the cut off is 9/1 or 8/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

Feel free to write USYS/USCS/AYSO and ask them to revisit the decision they spent months making. I’m sure they’ll consider your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

It looks like all the leagues, MLS, GA, and ECNL, agreed to release their plan after the tryouts and team formation, so whatever the difference in their transit plans, it will not affect each league in 25/26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

It’s 5.6% not 8.3% according to your math, which uses an awful lot of from end assumptions swapping states for population, etc. August kids are trapped in 9/1 states, not 8/1 states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like all the leagues, MLS, GA, and ECNL, agreed to release their plan after the tryouts and team formation, so whatever the difference in their transit plans, it will not affect each league in 25/26.

ECNL plan will be out around May.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

He is 6 years old…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like all the leagues, MLS, GA, and ECNL, agreed to release their plan after the tryouts and team formation, so whatever the difference in their transit plans, it will not affect each league in 25/26.

When are tryouts - and when will the transit plans come out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

A hard line has to be drawn somewhere. When you start allowing exceptions on the edges unfortunately it also opens up possibilities for abuse. There are parents who hold their kids back a year in school to help them with sports. International kids who move here but are at a low grade level for their age. How to distinguish genuine exceptions from the cheaters? Who gets to decide?

I mean, you could apply the same reasoning to lots of situations for kids who are older/younger than other kids at their grade. Should younger kids ahead in school be allowed to drive earlier so they aren’t excluded from their friends who can drive? Should ability to get a job be based on SY instead of birth year? Riding rides at an amusement park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

A hard line has to be drawn somewhere. When you start allowing exceptions on the edges unfortunately it also opens up possibilities for abuse. There are parents who hold their kids back a year in school to help them with sports. International kids who move here but are at a low grade level for their age. How to distinguish genuine exceptions from the cheaters? Who gets to decide?

I mean, you could apply the same reasoning to lots of situations for kids who are older/younger than other kids at their grade. Should younger kids ahead in school be allowed to drive earlier so they aren’t excluded from their friends who can drive? Should ability to get a job be based on SY instead of birth year? Riding rides at an amusement park?

Are you serious with this response? We are talking about one month of kids (August) being allowed to play with their enrolled grade in recognition of the prominent grade split that occurs nationally for this month of kids. That is all. It’s a discrete thing and not opening Pandora’s box as this post describes. The soccer system did not fall apart for decades pre-2016 when older August kids were on the team with their grade peers. And having more than a rigid 12 month window for registration has not destroyed other youth sports that are in fact growing and thriving while also including the late summer birthdays with their grade peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

A hard line has to be drawn somewhere. When you start allowing exceptions on the edges unfortunately it also opens up possibilities for abuse. There are parents who hold their kids back a year in school to help them with sports. International kids who move here but are at a low grade level for their age. How to distinguish genuine exceptions from the cheaters? Who gets to decide?

I mean, you could apply the same reasoning to lots of situations for kids who are older/younger than other kids at their grade. Should younger kids ahead in school be allowed to drive earlier so they aren’t excluded from their friends who can drive? Should ability to get a job be based on SY instead of birth year? Riding rides at an amusement park?

Are you serious with this response? We are talking about one month of kids (August) being allowed to play with their enrolled grade in recognition of the prominent grade split that occurs nationally for this month of kids. That is all. It’s a discrete thing and not opening Pandora’s box as this post describes. The soccer system did not fall apart for decades pre-2016 when older August kids were on the team with their grade peers. And having more than a rigid 12 month window for registration has not destroyed other youth sports that are in fact growing and thriving while also including the late summer birthdays with their grade peers.

I think lacrosse is more liberal with its SY rules AND has big problems with complaints about kids being too old for the age group as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

A hard line has to be drawn somewhere. When you start allowing exceptions on the edges unfortunately it also opens up possibilities for abuse. There are parents who hold their kids back a year in school to help them with sports. International kids who move here but are at a low grade level for their age. How to distinguish genuine exceptions from the cheaters? Who gets to decide?

I mean, you could apply the same reasoning to lots of situations for kids who are older/younger than other kids at their grade. Should younger kids ahead in school be allowed to drive earlier so they aren’t excluded from their friends who can drive? Should ability to get a job be based on SY instead of birth year? Riding rides at an amusement park?

This is right by the way💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like all the leagues, MLS, GA, and ECNL, agreed to release their plan after the tryouts and team formation, so whatever the difference in their transit plans, it will not affect each league in 25/26.

ECNL plan will be out around May.

I hope this is correct!
But what a time to put it out, this will really make tryout exciting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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

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%.

Let’s assume your numbers are in the ballpark. Why not just let those still trapped August kids play with their grade? If it’s such a small pool then odds are only one kid at most in that situation is on any given soccer team. Is that one kid being at most one extra month older than a 9/1 kid on the team (and in many cases only a matter of days/a week or two older than the 9/1 kid) really tipping the scales of fairness so much that we have to prohibit that kid from playing with their grade? This isn’t birth year where each team has a split of grades. Under a SY structure it really does matter more for the kid who is stuck alone playing with the wrong grade in a SY structure. Just let them play with their grade so long as they provide proof of enrollment.

A hard line has to be drawn somewhere. When you start allowing exceptions on the edges unfortunately it also opens up possibilities for abuse. There are parents who hold their kids back a year in school to help them with sports. International kids who move here but are at a low grade level for their age. How to distinguish genuine exceptions from the cheaters? Who gets to decide?

I mean, you could apply the same reasoning to lots of situations for kids who are older/younger than other kids at their grade. Should younger kids ahead in school be allowed to drive earlier so they aren’t excluded from their friends who can drive? Should ability to get a job be based on SY instead of birth year? Riding rides at an amusement park?

Are you serious with this response? We are talking about one month of kids (August) being allowed to play with their enrolled grade in recognition of the prominent grade split that occurs nationally for this month of kids. That is all. It’s a discrete thing and not opening Pandora’s box as this post describes. The soccer system did not fall apart for decades pre-2016 when older August kids were on the team with their grade peers. And having more than a rigid 12 month window for registration has not destroyed other youth sports that are in fact growing and thriving while also including the late summer birthdays with their grade peers.

I get it. The August exception would help some kids and probably yours. But what about the kid with a July 31st birthday who is in the grade ahead? You are going to not give them an exception? It’s only 1 day.

Look, I don’t really care where the line is drawn. Aug 1, Sep 1, Jan 1. No matter where it will determine some winners and losers. I just want there to be a clear line and rules to be easy to follow and prevent cheaters.