ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is possible that the leagues are reevaluating the 8/1 vs. 9/1 date based on abundant feedback from parents, coaches, clubs, etc. post-press release. It was a real surprise to many that they chose 9/1 instead of historic 8/1 which by their own press release data only hits 68% of school cutoffs and overlooks reality that even in the 68% of states with 9/1 cutoffs August kids aren’t required to enter Kindergarten right upon turning 5 and many don’t. Perhaps reasonable heads will actually prevail and they fix their mistake. There certainly is time to fix it given rollout not until fall 2026.

They’ll accommodate some of this with leagues like ECNL allowing grad year teams for older age groups.

But as noted, the cat is out of the bag on this and there is no going back from 9/1.

How do you know there is no going back? There is no rule they cannot modify it and there is loads of time.

The ECNL CEO has already given the reason for picking 9/1. They will not change to 8/1. Showcase and U18 can be GY, and that would be it.

[Anonymous]

And the reason is flawed. And leaders can change their mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the reason is flawed. And leaders can change their mind.

Wishful thinking. They will not slap their face just to please you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the reason is flawed. And leaders can change their mind.

Wishful thinking. They will not slap their face just to please you.

I don't think its because they are reading this chat and want to please him. If August birthdays encompass the most kids...why would we would want to neglect those kids. That group would be the only ones not playing with their school year and trapped in HS sports. I assume they did receive a lot of feedback from clubs/parents/other organizations. It doesn't sound like they put much rational thought into their decision. So, yes I can see them changing their mind...better than changing it again the following year. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the reason is flawed. And leaders can change their mind.

Wishful thinking. They will not slap their face just to please you.

I don't think its because they are reading this chat and want to please him. If August birthdays encompass the most kids...why would we would want to neglect those kids. That group would be the only ones not playing with their school year and trapped in HS sports. I assume they did receive a lot of feedback from clubs/parents/other organizations. It doesn't sound like they put much rational thought into their decision. So, yes I can see them changing their mind...better than changing it again the following year. .

I support the effort to get to 1000 but this part is already done. They released their reasoning and research supporting it already. There is no reason to beat a dead horse here.

[Anonymous]

What stage of grief are Aug parents in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the reason is flawed. And leaders can change their mind.

Wishful thinking. They will not slap their face just to please you.

I don't think its because they are reading this chat and want to please him. If August birthdays encompass the most kids...why would we would want to neglect those kids. That group would be the only ones not playing with their school year and trapped in HS sports. I assume they did receive a lot of feedback from clubs/parents/other organizations. It doesn't sound like they put much rational thought into their decision. So, yes I can see them changing their mind...better than changing it again the following year. .

"U.S. Soccer performed an assessment of available data (e.g., 2020 U.S. Census & National Center for Education Statistics) and qualitative feedback and determined that September 1 represents most school districts’ calendars (~68%) across the country." It ain't gonna be no rematch.

[Anonymous]

We will see what GA and MLSN decide to do. Maybe they will agree with Aug parents and their arguments or maybe they will just stick to BY or 9/1. That’s the only hope for Aug kids - whatever those leagues decide to do. Little to no chance US Soccer changes anything for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We will see what GA and MLSN decide to do. Maybe they will agree with Aug parents and their arguments or maybe they will just stick to BY or 9/1. That’s the only hope for Aug kids - whatever those leagues decide to do. Little to no chance US Soccer changes anything for the foreseeable future.

ECNL has already leaked that they are going to allow grad year for older (U16/u17/u18) age groups. Maybe just for showcases but maybe not. So that would fix the issue for those August bdays. Prior to those age groups, they just get to be the youngest on a team... I mean, someone has to be, no way around it.

MLSN allows biobanding, which wouldn't go away if they switched to SY, so that would also cover those August bdays who are 'too young' to play with their correct age group (for some reason)...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is possible that the leagues are reevaluating the 8/1 vs. 9/1 date based on abundant feedback from parents, coaches, clubs, etc. post-press release. It was a real surprise to many that they chose 9/1 instead of historic 8/1 which by their own press release data only hits 68% of school cutoffs and overlooks reality that even in the 68% of states with 9/1 cutoffs August kids aren’t required to enter Kindergarten right upon turning 5 and many don’t. Perhaps reasonable heads will actually prevail and they fix their mistake. There certainly is time to fix it given rollout not until fall 2026.

Picking September 1 wasn't a mistake. That is the date most closely aligned with the school year in the majority of the US.

The August birthday parents who held their kids back or live in states with an 8/1 school cutoff have a legitimate gripe - just like the Q4 parents have had since 2016. But this isn't about being perfect - it's about being as fair to the country (as a whole) as possible - in terms of only playing against kids in your grade. The 9/1 date serves that purpose - because if you used the 8/1 date, about 32% percent of the country would be able to have kids in the grade up playing against the 68% of states who use the 9/1 school cutoff.

Feel free to keep complaining about how the 9/1 cutoff is not right for "your kid." We get it. But USYS and USCS don't care because 9/1 is the best we can do to having nationwide schoolyear teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is possible that the leagues are reevaluating the 8/1 vs. 9/1 date based on abundant feedback from parents, coaches, clubs, etc. post-press release. It was a real surprise to many that they chose 9/1 instead of historic 8/1 which by their own press release data only hits 68% of school cutoffs and overlooks reality that even in the 68% of states with 9/1 cutoffs August kids aren’t required to enter Kindergarten right upon turning 5 and many don’t. Perhaps reasonable heads will actually prevail and they fix their mistake. There certainly is time to fix it given rollout not until fall 2026.

Picking September 1 wasn't a mistake. That is the date most closely aligned with the school year in the majority of the US.

The August birthday parents who held their kids back or live in states with an 8/1 school cutoff have a legitimate gripe - just like the Q4 parents have had since 2016. But this isn't about being perfect - it's about being as fair to the country (as a whole) as possible - in terms of only playing against kids in your grade. The 9/1 date serves that purpose - because if you used the 8/1 date, about 32% percent of the country would be able to have kids in the grade up playing against the 68% of states who use the 9/1 school cutoff.

Feel free to keep complaining about how the 9/1 cutoff is not right for "your kid." We get it. But USYS and USCS don't care because 9/1 is the best we can do to having nationwide schoolyear teams.

Sorry that was backward with the statistics. If you used 8/1, then in states where 9/1 is the cutoff, the August birthdays would be playing against the grade down. So that would be 68% of the nation would continue having kids in the grade up playing against kids in the grade down. It makes a difference. So the 9/1 actually protects the 32% of states as a whole who would not have kids in the grade up on their teams. It may not be fair to the August bdays in those 32% of states, but it's certainly more fair to those states - as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone think they didnt evaluate 8/1?

9/1 was a carefuly selected date.

Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think they didnt evaluate 8/1?

9/1 was a carefuly selected date.

Move on.

These recent posts read like an unhinged parent in a state that uses 8/1 as the cutoff thinking if s/he complains enough on this anonymous message board, USYS and UCSC will switch it to 8/1.

But at the end of the day, the kid was on the younger end of the BY registration - and will stay on the same team and continue to be on the young end. Nothing to see here for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think they didnt evaluate 8/1?

9/1 was a carefuly selected date.

Move on.

Listen, and hear me out, but what if we do something like SY + 60? Has that ever been discussed here, or anywhere else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone think they didnt evaluate 8/1?

9/1 was a carefuly selected date.

Move on.

Listen, and hear me out, but what if we do something like SY + 60? Has that ever been discussed here, or anywhere else?

The decision has been made for the 9/1 to 8/31 registration system. If someone would like a different system, feel free to write USYS and USCS and ask for it to be changed.

It took 10 years to get it changed from BY to SY, so it can definitely happen if you're patient enough.