ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

[Anonymous]

I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

Yup. Exactly. They want to say they stay BY and already have biobanding. They get to align with “international standards” while avoiding the logistical issues that come with everyone else transitioning to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

ECNL league game will be strictly 9/1 to 8/31. You can call it SY for your convenience. No exception, no play down, no loophole. The only flexibility ECNL can offer is GY in its showcase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That wouldn’t be biobanding 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

ECNL league game will be strictly 9/1 to 8/31. You can call it SY for your convenience. No exception, no play down, no loophole. The only flexibility ECNL can offer is GY in its showcase.

ECNL does not allow GY in showcases.

No matter how much you try to make it happen.

Also, other parents don't let the GY parents screw your kid out of being recruited by playing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

I think you meant, "if theres some holdbacks let then get their boots on and cheat"

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That wouldn’t be biobanding 😂

MLSN currently only allows late developers to drop one year so the PP is suggesting that it would be limited to Sept -Dec. Considering MLSN has no real policing or criteria for what constitutes what a late developer is and allows biobanding for multiple years and beyond U15, based on comments from other posters, then the Sept-Dec definition would just as good as the current "late developers" rule in defining biobanding.

[Anonymous]

GY will not happen. At best, you’ll get SY with some flexibility for Aug and maybe July kids.