ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people starting to understand why SY+60 is the way to go (if you're not going to do BY)?

- It addresses all trapped players nationwide
- It keeps the GY cheaters out

With the above accommodations most BY people have no issue with SY.

No, it's just you that thinking opening the floodgate for exceptions is a good idea, and other parents of August kids

There's no floodgate.

Wirh SY+60 kids born 60 days before the official cutoff date are allowed to "play down" with proof of grade enrolled in school + a birth cert. Everyone else is birth cert only.

This addresses all trapped players nationwide + because its a 60 day cutoff it bars all the GY idiots from trying to sneak in.

Agree. This makes the most sense. The only people hating on it are the ones that assume it will lead to more exceptions.

There will be a push for SY 90 plus, then just GY, so yeah, exceptions floodgate for those representing their kids. It's laudable to argue for your kid but not tenable for leagues to cater to your kid. This type of exception suggestion is the reason they spent a year arguing this stuff behind closed doors. And haven't offered any details on the age change.

No there won't be a change because SY+60 is already the defined norm. Trying to change it to SY+90 or whatever would require rebranding + explaining to everyone why you're making the change. Which will never happen because people will see through the obvious attempt to subvert SY+60.

Would you want it to be 2 months though so in reality is it 62?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people starting to understand why SY+60 is the way to go (if you're not going to do BY)?

- It addresses all trapped players nationwide
- It keeps the GY cheaters out

With the above accommodations most BY people have no issue with SY.

No, it's just you that thinking opening the floodgate for exceptions is a good idea, and other parents of August kids

There's no floodgate.

Wirh SY+60 kids born 60 days before the official cutoff date are allowed to "play down" with proof of grade enrolled in school + a birth cert. Everyone else is birth cert only.

This addresses all trapped players nationwide + because its a 60 day cutoff it bars all the GY idiots from trying to sneak in.

Agree. This makes the most sense. The only people hating on it are the ones that assume it will lead to more exceptions.

Leading to more exceptions is why its important to call out the only exception in the name ie SY+60.

It's also important that the only exception is a number (60) so people can't try and twist the definition into something else.

The only exception should be to stick to a straight date deadline and live with it. Soccer has had a struck date and no reason to change that just because some kids are left out. Stick to the dates and move on. This is only being talked about because weak leadership can put their foot down and stay this is how it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are people starting to understand why SY+60 is the way to go (if you're not going to do BY)?

- It addresses all trapped players nationwide
- It keeps the GY cheaters out

With the above accommodations most BY people have no issue with SY.

No, it's just you that thinking opening the floodgate for exceptions is a good idea, and other parents of August kids

There's no floodgate.

Wirh SY+60 kids born 60 days before the official cutoff date are allowed to "play down" with proof of grade enrolled in school + a birth cert. Everyone else is birth cert only.

This addresses all trapped players nationwide + because its a 60 day cutoff it bars all the GY idiots from trying to sneak in.

Agree. This makes the most sense. The only people hating on it are the ones that assume it will lead to more exceptions.

There will be a push for SY 90 plus, then just GY, so yeah, exceptions floodgate for those representing their kids. It's laudable to argue for your kid but not tenable for leagues to cater to your kid. This type of exception suggestion is the reason they spent a year arguing this stuff behind closed doors. And haven't offered any details on the age change.

No there won't be a change because SY+60 is already the defined norm. Trying to change it to SY+90 or whatever would require rebranding + explaining to everyone why you're making the change. Which will never happen because people will see through the obvious attempt to subvert SY+60.

Would you want it to be 2 months though so in reality is it 62?

Yea, I agree.

I didn't call this out because several months ago we didn't know when the cutoff would be. If I got deep into the details people would get confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

College coaches aren't paying 2k-3k for their kid to attend a showcase at some far off location. Parents are + these are the kids that should be playing in front of the scouts not some kid playing down because they didn't get recruited the season before.

[Anonymous]

Our GA coach told us last night the club (also has MLSN) is switching to SY for fall of 26

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

Yeah it is very strange. I guess the argument is that there are a bunch of kids (already?!) failing multiple grades in order to stay behind in case ECNL enacts this rule for U16+ in the year 2026? It really doesn't make sense. In 99.9% of cases it would be some juniors getting to play with juniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late) and/or some seniors getting to play with seniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late).

I get not wanting this for every age group, I think the proposed strict cut off of SY age ranges is fine for U8-U16. But allowing a few exceptions for juniors and seniors is just a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

Yeah it is very strange. I guess the argument is that there are a bunch of kids (already?!) failing multiple grades in order to stay behind in case ECNL enacts this rule for U16+ in the year 2026? It really doesn't make sense. In 99.9% of cases it would be some juniors getting to play with juniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late) and/or some seniors getting to play with seniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late).

I get not wanting this for every age group, I think the proposed strict cut off of SY age ranges is fine for U8-U16. But allowing a few exceptions for juniors and seniors is just a no-brainer.

With SY+60 all trapped players go away so you wouldn't have exceptions at u16 and above. Other than the players that are intentionally getting held back in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

College coaches aren't paying 2k-3k for their kid to attend a showcase at some far off location. Parents are + these are the kids that should be playing in front of the scouts not some kid playing down because they didn't get recruited the season before.

Such a lack of any understanding that ECNL runs a marketplace to connect players and colleges. And both sides are their customers. Just because one side pays and the other does not means nothing. if you want to maximize the number of coaches in attendance to justify the parents paying those fees to come then you are goign to listen to what those coaches want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

College coaches aren't paying 2k-3k for their kid to attend a showcase at some far off location. Parents are + these are the kids that should be playing in front of the scouts not some kid playing down because they didn't get recruited the season before.

The recruitment timelines is based on GY. When college coaches can talk to a player, make an offer, when player can verbally commit and when player can give a signed commitment. It’s not that trapped players, or players playing an age group older than what is appropriate for their grade, didn’t get recruited the year before. Rather, they couldn’t yet be recruited.

My kids will both be placed in the age group appropriate for their grade so I have no horse in this race. I’m not advocating GY across the board, just think it’s more than likely that ecnl showcases will be GY. Again, won’t be an issue either way for my family.

Ideally, clubs should be giving pretty even playing time and rotating starters for showcases because it is about getting your players seen and committed rather than wins. I’ve also been around club soccer long enough to know that clubs don’t care how much you are spending, they’ll do whatever they want. Best of luck to you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
College coaches aren't paying 2k-3k for their kid to attend a showcase at some far off location. Parents are + these are the kids that should be playing in front of the scouts not some kid playing down because they didn't get recruited the season before.

The hypothetical kid was off-cycle the year before - they were too young by grade year (e.g, a sophomore), so the coaches aren't allowed to talk with them. This IS their recruiting season, and like it or not, they are the competition your kids have for recruitment.

I'd argue you should integrate these kids to the appropriate year earlier (~beginning of high school, or 8th grade to remove the trapped problem), so that YOUR kid has a few years to play against them and maximize their improvement and chances for recruitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

Yeah it is very strange. I guess the argument is that there are a bunch of kids (already?!) failing multiple grades in order to stay behind in case ECNL enacts this rule for U16+ in the year 2026? It really doesn't make sense. In 99.9% of cases it would be some juniors getting to play with juniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late) and/or some seniors getting to play with seniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late).

I get not wanting this for every age group, I think the proposed strict cut off of SY age ranges is fine for U8-U16. But allowing a few exceptions for juniors and seniors is just a no-brainer.

With SY+60 all trapped players go away so you wouldn't have exceptions at u16 and above. Other than the players that are intentionally getting held back in school.

Never give up selling that monorail...never give up! And of course many of the 60 or 62 + are held back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

Yeah it is very strange. I guess the argument is that there are a bunch of kids (already?!) failing multiple grades in order to stay behind in case ECNL enacts this rule for U16+ in the year 2026? It really doesn't make sense. In 99.9% of cases it would be some juniors getting to play with juniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late) and/or some seniors getting to play with seniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late).

I get not wanting this for every age group, I think the proposed strict cut off of SY age ranges is fine for U8-U16. But allowing a few exceptions for juniors and seniors is just a no-brainer.

With SY+60 all trapped players go away so you wouldn't have exceptions at u16 and above. Other than the players that are intentionally getting held back in school.

Never give up selling that monorail...never give up! And of course many of the 60 or 62 + are held back.

They're selling the monorail because it addresses most of the issues being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.

Showcases are for recruiting not wins. Kids of the same GY are competing for the same spots regardless of age. I don’t understand your argument.

Love the comments about people "cheating" by allowing their older kid to play in a showcase with kids in the same graduating class as them. Or worried about it taking playtime form other kids.

The reason ECNL may do this is because it is what college coaches are asking for! They survey the coaches who come to their showcases seeking improvements. and one of the top things coaches list time after time is having to watch players in a game and have to figure out what class they are in. They want to be able to show up to a game and know everyone is Class fo 2027 or Class of 2028, etc.

Yeah it is very strange. I guess the argument is that there are a bunch of kids (already?!) failing multiple grades in order to stay behind in case ECNL enacts this rule for U16+ in the year 2026? It really doesn't make sense. In 99.9% of cases it would be some juniors getting to play with juniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late) and/or some seniors getting to play with seniors (even though they are technically a year up but were born in July or August and started school late).

I get not wanting this for every age group, I think the proposed strict cut off of SY age ranges is fine for U8-U16. But allowing a few exceptions for juniors and seniors is just a no-brainer.

With SY+60 all trapped players go away so you wouldn't have exceptions at u16 and above. Other than the players that are intentionally getting held back in school.

Never give up selling that monorail...never give up! And of course many of the 60 or 62 + are held back.

OR they are the kids in Aug. 1 cutoff states.

[Anonymous]

Reguarding SY+60...

Don't provide unrequested advise.

Fools won't heed it and the wise won't need it.