ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems very odd that ECNL has not announced any transition plans. If there is no transition plan and there will be an abrupt change for the 2026-2027 season, why even wait a year for the change if it will be sudden anyway?

They're waiting for tryout season to be over. No reason to inject anymore uncertainty or messaging and potentially mess things up. Much better for everyone to get locked in for another year and then come out with what they will be doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

It isn’t fragility. It’s an acknowledgement that in a SY framework being misaligned with your grade for soccer has an outsize impact as opposed to in a BY framework. In BY those August kids have grade peers from September through December on their team, too, as opposed to with SY where they become the only month playing with the wrong grade. And in BY there are 5 months of kids trapped that need to be accounted for with alternatives for their trapped years, but with SY they are the only month trapped so what offerings will there realistically be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

It isn’t fragility. It’s an acknowledgement that in a SY framework being misaligned with your grade for soccer has an outsize impact as opposed to in a BY framework. In BY those August kids have grade peers from September through December on their team, too, as opposed to with SY where they become the only month playing with the wrong grade. And in BY there are 5 months of kids trapped that need to be accounted for with alternatives for their trapped years, but with SY they are the only month trapped so what offerings will there realistically be?

So in your world:

A- when lots of people are impacted we should do nothing because, hey, they have more fellow impacted people around them (and that makes it better somehow?).
B- when far far fewer people are impacted we need to call in the cavalry to 'fix' it because reasons?

It doesn't make any sense to me. Sorry. Q4s were told to just suck it up, get tougher and deal with it. August bdays will just have to do the same. They will be better off by playing with older players anyway! That's what everyone told the Q4s. They are gong to allow some true grade year exceptions at the older age groups (U16-19) which seems like a perfectly fine compromise to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems very odd that ECNL has not announced any transition plans. If there is no transition plan and there will be an abrupt change for the 2026-2027 season, why even wait a year for the change if it will be sudden anyway?

ECNL tryout is already ongoing, so I think there will be no significant transit plan. GY in showcase is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems very odd that ECNL has not announced any transition plans. If there is no transition plan and there will be an abrupt change for the 2026-2027 season, why even wait a year for the change if it will be sudden anyway?

'IF' they decide to allow a transition plan we will find out in early June. Either way they will come out with what their plan is around that time as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Get this man/woman in a decision maker seat. Well articulated, rational and reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

Where do trapped players play in actual games with the club's younger teams? Please, provide some links. I have been coaching since 2012, and I have never seen this occur.

No drama needed. That is what a strict cut off date is for. Then there is 0 drama.

[Anonymous]

I spoke to our ECNL director yesterday and they are waiting on guidance and any transition plans to be released by ECNL leadership. He also told me that the club might not participate in any transition plan and simply do a clean changeover in 2026-2027.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

Where do trapped players play in actual games with the club's younger teams? Please, provide some links. I have been coaching since 2012, and I have never seen this occur.

No drama needed. That is what a strict cut off date is for. Then there is 0 drama.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecnl.sidearmsports.com/documents/2023/9/11/ECNL_Competition_Rules_2023_2024.pdf

Rule 2.9. As far as whether or not they play an actual games, I have no idea, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a rule that allows it. And there are about 800 pages of “drama” about going to a strict school year cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

Where do trapped players play in actual games with the club's younger teams? Please, provide some links. I have been coaching since 2012, and I have never seen this occur.

No drama needed. That is what a strict cut off date is for. Then there is 0 drama.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecnl.sidearmsports.com/documents/2023/9/11/ECNL_Competition_Rules_2023_2024.pdf

Rule 2.9. As far as whether or not they play an actual games, I have no idea, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a rule that allows it. And there are about 800 pages of “drama” about going to a strict school year cut off.

Cool. So no issue then with a strict cut off and June/July/August bdays can just practice with the younger team if their ECNL club allows it. Done and problem solved!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

Where do trapped players play in actual games with the club's younger teams? Please, provide some links. I have been coaching since 2012, and I have never seen this occur.

No drama needed. That is what a strict cut off date is for. Then there is 0 drama.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecnl.sidearmsports.com/documents/2023/9/11/ECNL_Competition_Rules_2023_2024.pdf

Rule 2.9. As far as whether or not they play an actual games, I have no idea, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a rule that allows it. And there are about 800 pages of “drama” about going to a strict school year cut off.

Cool. So no issue then with a strict cut off and June/July/August bdays can just practice with the younger team if their ECNL club allows it. Done and problem solved!

Or play in games. But no more than 2 on a team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heart the "SY + 60" person...and the idea. Or a "let August play with their grade year" approach, or a waiver system in place. There are a lot of reasonable places where an August birthday kid will be mis-aligned in the 9/1 system and the heartache doesn't seem worth the occasional small creep in age group.

All jokes aside, and regardless of where you land on this (has zero impact on my kid), having some sort of flexibility like that makes the most sense. But because it makes sense, I doubt it would ever happen.

Why? There was no flexibility in the old BY system and that impacted a much much larger pool of players. Why make all of these loopholes and exceptions (that certainly won't be exploited by anyone) when the impacted pool is so small? It wasn't done before. Are August bday kids somehow that fragile?

There was flexibility. Trapped players could play down. And just because something wasn’t done before doesn’t mean you can’t improve on it. But you (I hope) know that. Remember - it was the trapped player phenomenon that lead the charge to change it to school year. Are the BY kids so fragile the entire system needed to be reworked again?

People are just highlighting the problems with a strict cutoff if the goal is to align kids with their grade and to avoid the trapped player, which it is. Having the 9/1 - 8/31 range, but allowing some reasonable criteria to opt-in to your correct school year, makes the most sense to meet that goal. For example, at registration, you can request to opt-in to the correct school year granted you meet some requirements - I.e. within a certain timeframe to the current cutoff (July and August) and proof you’re in that school year. You can also limit how many kids each team can have that would be an “opt-in” so you don’t get people crying about teams filled with July/Aug holdbacks (as if two months would make a difference anyway). That is just one example of a real-world solution that would allow soccer to truly be a school year sport (within reason) that would work on a national level. If you don’t see that or understand, that’s fine too. The world needs all types of people.

Where could trapped players play down? I have ever seen a single instance of this. All of your exceptions are massive holes that cheats will exploit and are unreasonably complicated. There has been a strict cutoff for the last almost 10 years. No one called for all of these exceptions and allowances.

Massive holes!? Cheats?! Unreasonably complicated!? Save the drama and unclench your pearls.

Trapped players play down with their club’s younger team. Happens often and ECNL allows it. A lot of people called for exceptions and allowances -why do you think it’s changing back to SY?!

Where do trapped players play in actual games with the club's younger teams? Please, provide some links. I have been coaching since 2012, and I have never seen this occur.

No drama needed. That is what a strict cut off date is for. Then there is 0 drama.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ecnl.sidearmsports.com/documents/2023/9/11/ECNL_Competition_Rules_2023_2024.pdf

Rule 2.9. As far as whether or not they play an actual games, I have no idea, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a rule that allows it. And there are about 800 pages of “drama” about going to a strict school year cut off.

2.9 is basically what ECNL is proposing for the new SY age groups already (except for the U15 part). It would only impact U16 and above which is a perfectly fine compromise. Younger age groups will all be 9/1-8/31 which makes sense for this younger groups.