ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

💯 All August kids can play with their grade now with the change to 8/1. The younger August kids were going to be the youngest in the age range under 9/1 also. So that hasn’t changed by going to 8/1 and if they want to leverage the 8/1 date and don’t care about playing with grade they can be the oldest in the age range below now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

I bet he agrees in concept, but wants the 60+ to make it foolproof, which should really be 30+ since it is now moved to 8/1

[Anonymous]

Don’t care if it’s 8/1 or 9/1. But clubs/coaches decide which team a kid will play on. Players/parents don’t tell the club which team the kid will play for.

The parents can change clubs, of course, if they don’t like the decision of the club/team/coaches.

But I don’t agree with the narrative that the parent can just tell the club/coach/team that they MUST put their August birthday kid on the older team with his/her classmates.

Mine is a Q4 girl and a top third player on the top team in a large state. I don’t know if the coaches will keep her with her current team or move her based on the new birthday cut offs. All I can do is threaten to change clubs if I don’t agree with their decision (and hope the other club will have agreed to put her in the age we want her in). But my daughter won’t want to change clubs and leave the friendships she’s made over the years. So no good options and we (as parents) aren’t the ones that get to make the final decision as to which team she’ll play for at the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care if it’s 8/1 or 9/1. But clubs/coaches decide which team a kid will play on. Players/parents don’t tell the club which team the kid will play for.

The parents can change clubs, of course, if they don’t like the decision of the club/team/coaches.

But I don’t agree with the narrative that the parent can just tell the club/coach/team that they MUST put their August birthday kid on the older team with his/her classmates.

Mine is a Q4 girl and a top third player on the top team in a large state. I don’t know if the coaches will keep her with her current team or move her based on the new birthday cut offs. All I can do is threaten to change clubs if I don’t agree with their decision (and hope the other club will have agreed to put her in the age we want her in). But my daughter won’t want to change clubs and leave the friendships she’s made over the years. So no good options and we (as parents) aren’t the ones that get to make the final decision as to which team she’ll play for at the club.

100% this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

I bet he agrees in concept, but wants the 60+ to make it foolproof, which should really be 30+ since it is now moved to 8/1

Fool proof would be 10/1+90.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t care if it’s 8/1 or 9/1. But clubs/coaches decide which team a kid will play on. Players/parents don’t tell the club which team the kid will play for.

The parents can change clubs, of course, if they don’t like the decision of the club/team/coaches.

But I don’t agree with the narrative that the parent can just tell the club/coach/team that they MUST put their August birthday kid on the older team with his/her classmates.

Mine is a Q4 girl and a top third player on the top team in a large state. I don’t know if the coaches will keep her with her current team or move her based on the new birthday cut offs. All I can do is threaten to change clubs if I don’t agree with their decision (and hope the other club will have agreed to put her in the age we want her in). But my daughter won’t want to change clubs and leave the friendships she’s made over the years. So no good options and we (as parents) aren’t the ones that get to make the final decision as to which team she’ll play for at the club.

I don't disagree, and think it will be very club specific as to what each team decides to do. I think the key is though that the club (or parent or player) still has the option.

Is your Q4 DD a trapped player? What year is she? I think for the older teams, you'll see more of the Q3/4 players staying put, but not for the younger teams. And your DD might not have any leverage to stay on the current team if the players in the age group above her are realigned to be no her current team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

I am now hearing that they are looking at changing the dates to August 1 -July 31. Evidently, there are more August birthdays than other month, and the majority will be trapped.

How did they not look at the data or think of this before making an announcement? It was August 1- July 31 before they made the change...why switch to September 1 ...and not have concrete data to support that change, or why make an announcement if didn't have time to do that? It's just not organized.

Anyways...from what I am hearing..it will most likely change to August 1 cutoff..but won't be sorted until the fall/thanksgiving.

I guess it only affects August birthdays, so not a huge impact, but still those parents won't know the new age group for another 7 months.

I assume you are the parent of an August bday? Next time, you should try reading. It's fundamental.

U.S. Soccer performed an assessment of available data (e.g., 2020 U.S. Census & National Center for Education Statistics) and qualitative feedback and determined that September 1 represents most school districts’ calendars (~68%) across the country.

https://www.calnorth.org/news/us-youth-soccer-us-club-soccer-and-ayso-returning-to-seasonal-year-age-group-formation-in-2026

Good point. They already did the research and made the announcement. Can’t read? Seriously…August 1?

What an idiot. Obviously crying over his August birthday and now just making stuff up. People are so dumb.

[Anonymous]

When's the next ECNL podcast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When's the next ECNL podcast?

More like when is the next GA one? Them and MLSN will be the last big clete to drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

I bet he agrees in concept, but wants the 60+ to make it foolproof, which should really be 30+ since it is now moved to 8/1

Actually i prefer BY but if you have to do SY with a single cutoff date 8/1 is better than 9/1.

I'm glad people finally understand why SY+60 with a 9/1 cutoff makes sense. Even SY+30 is workable but there are some schools that start in July which will still create trapped players but they're like .0001% so it doesnt really matter.

The +60 or +30 eliminates trapped players but it also keeps players a grade older from playing down because you'll have to show proof of grade enrolled. +60 or +30 also bars regrades from playing but so does a single cutoff date.

In the end the reason US Club chose 8/1 was because they heard that this was what GA was considering. Change it now or they'd look like they were following GA. The didnt do SY+60 because it adds an extra level of overhead (proof of grade enrolled if born 7/1-9-1).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

I bet he agrees in concept, but wants the 60+ to make it foolproof, which should really be 30+ since it is now moved to 8/1

Actually i prefer BY but if you have to do SY with a single cutoff date 8/1 is better than 9/1.

I'm glad people finally understand why SY+60 with a 9/1 cutoff makes sense. Even SY+30 is workable but there are some schools that start in July which will still create trapped players but they're like .0001% so it doesnt really matter.

The +60 or +30 eliminates trapped players but it also keeps players a grade older from playing down because you'll have to show proof of grade enrolled. +60 or +30 also bars regrades from playing but so does a single cutoff date.

In the end the reason US Club chose 8/1 was because they heard that this was what GA was considering. Change it now or they'd look like they were following GA. The didnt do SY+60 because it adds an extra level of overhead (proof of grade enrolled if born 7/1-9-1).

Oh and just to be clear SY+30 with an 8/1 cutoff doesn't really work because it allows Aug birthdays a.grade older (depending on when their district at the time started) to play down. You do address the July birthdays though but theses are .0001% of the total.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.

Go ahead and generalize to minimize if you want but nationwide it'll be fairly sizable number, likely bigger than the Aug cohort effected under the previous plan. The timing to announce this after tryouts and during summer may mute any complaints right away but as people affected learn this how they are affected, they'll start grousing (like they have here already).

No more generalizing than you. There was a reason it was 8/1 for so long before new leadership at USSF tried the birthyear experiment in a very uniquely American soccer setting. That experiment failed so they have (finally) realized that reverting to what it was before makes the most (albeit not perfect) sense. The 9/1 school start time for most states has been around a long time. No one was complaining before we switched to BY that the soccer schedule should have been 9/1 instead of 8/1. USYS/AYSO/US Club slowly realized that after some self-reflection.

You also didn't address the fact that Aug. kids can play up with their correct grade in an 8/1 system. But in a 9/1 system, Aug. kids can't play down with their correct grade. I would have to imagine that was the driving factor to realizing the 9/1 cutoff was a bad idea.

SY+60 guy disagrees with you

I bet he agrees in concept, but wants the 60+ to make it foolproof, which should really be 30+ since it is now moved to 8/1

Actually i prefer BY but if you have to do SY with a single cutoff date 8/1 is better than 9/1.

I'm glad people finally understand why SY+60 with a 9/1 cutoff makes sense. Even SY+30 is workable but there are some schools that start in July which will still create trapped players but they're like .0001% so it doesnt really matter.

The +60 or +30 eliminates trapped players but it also keeps players a grade older from playing down because you'll have to show proof of grade enrolled. +60 or +30 also bars regrades from playing but so does a single cutoff date.

In the end the reason US Club chose 8/1 was because they heard that this was what GA was considering. Change it now or they'd look like they were following GA. The didnt do SY+60 because it adds an extra level of overhead (proof of grade enrolled if born 7/1-9-1).

Oh and just to be clear SY+30 with an 8/1 cutoff doesn't really work because it allows Aug birthdays a.grade older (depending on when their district at the time started) to play down. You do address the July birthdays though but theses are .0001% of the total.

I did see that someone suggested SY+90 with a 10/1 cutoff. This would work really well addressing all trapped players and not allowing players in the wrong grade to play down.