ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

Agree could get behind SY+30.

Hawaii has a 7/31 cutoff date. So +30 kind of works.

You have to keep in mind the +30 or +60 qualifier is a birth cert and documentation showing grade in school.

It's not like every kid who was born 1 or 2 months before 9/1 qualifies. They have to be in the correct grade as well. 99% of the time this will occur because XYZ state cutoff date was before 9/1. Basically it wasn't the kids fault that their states policy was to start school before 9/1.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

Sorry, my kid is a September baby.

But she'll most likely stay with her current team no matter what decision is made.

This just isn't remotely believable. I do worry that you are a kid getting roasted for lobbying for such a hair brained scheme though. Hope that's not the case, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

Agree could get behind SY+30.

Hawaii has a 7/31 cutoff date. So +30 kind of works.

You have to keep in mind the +30 or +60 qualifier is a birth cert and documentation showing grade in school.

It's not like every kid who was born 1 or 2 months before 9/1 qualifies. They have to be in the correct grade as well. 99% of the time this will occur because XYZ state cutoff date was before 9/1. Basically it wasn't the kids fault that their states policy was to start school before 9/1.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

Sorry, my kid is a September baby.

But she'll most likely stay with her current team no matter what decision is made.

This just isn't remotely believable. I do worry that you are a kid getting roasted for lobbying for such a hair brained scheme though. Hope that's not the case, of course.

Why do you think this? Top 20 club in the nation most ages, my kids been playing since she was 3, she's played at the same club the entire time.

[Anonymous]

Believe what you want. The problem with youth soccer in America is that p2p has given voices to people (parents) and clubs that cater to them that dont matter. Stupid discussions that never end about topics like RAE are a waste of time because in the end they dont matter. Switching from BY to SY just reinforces the college pathway where talent goes to die. But, at least you have a degree to fall back on.

[Anonymous]

I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

[Anonymous]

SY +60 makes the most sense. Not sure why some people are so against the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

All the + crap does is make RAE worse for kids who don’t qualify because they will be up against kids who are 12+ months older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN and ECNL just confirmed SY+270

Why does MLSN want to stay BY again? MLSN2 allows high school right? I would have thought SY lined up well there. Plus, MLS ‘futures’ are supposed to get called up to MLSN1 at times. So are the futures only going to be certain kids that align with BY cutoffs? Can’t imagine offering a product that only some kids on the SAME TEAM can utilize, not because of their skill, but because of their birth month.

Agree this would be a problem. But also the selling point of mlsn2 is they train along with mlsn1. How does that work if one is u13 and the other is 2012s? A nightmare for coaches to manage; and will be all the parents talk about. We need to focus on development of players, an ongoing hyperfixation on birth month will be very distracting and turn people off from the sport.

That's ridiculous

Tell that to a coach who has to constantly communicate to kids and their parents who can and cannot play up or down each season depending if they are mlsn1 or mlsn2 and what their birth month is.

Got news for you…Historically speaking, MLSNext will probably be around for a few more years or so and then get replaced with another group of letters, hopefully one that doesn’t require traveling 5+ hours for a single game.

[Anonymous]

The + is not a thing. Its sole existence is in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The + is not a thing. Its sole existence is in this thread.

It exists in other sports, like lacrosse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The + is not a thing. Its sole existence is in this thread.

It exists in other sports, like lacrosse.

Lacrosse is more like 2/3rds of a sport

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

Frankly we should do it, because at the end of the day, all the best players play up anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

Frankly we should do it, because at the end of the day, all the best players play up anyway.

Kids don’t want exceptions made for them, especially due to age. Playing down signals to them and everyone else they are not good enough to play in their designated age group.