ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

It would be funny if GA did SY+90 with a 10/1 cutoff date.

It looks really complicated but it isn't. All players have a birthcert so they could play in other leagues tournaments. Except the GA July birthdays which would be so rare they could be allowed execptions.

[Anonymous]

People are misunderstanding
The new age group ranges must be I plenented BY the 26-27 season, there is no statement saying it cannot be implemented BEFORE 26-27...There will be be pilot programs and policy changes come Fall that will surprise those not reading between the lines.
Bottom line, work hard this summer so the choice is yours and not the club's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are misunderstanding
The new age group ranges must be I plenented BY the 26-27 season, there is no statement saying it cannot be implemented BEFORE 26-27...There will be be pilot programs and policy changes come Fall that will surprise those not reading between the lines.
Bottom line, work hard this summer so the choice is yours and not the club's.

Except you've already made your choice at tryouts. Clubs will be playing with fire if they try to change too much for the upcoming year now. Many already are dreading/not happy with some teams facing big changes. What you will probably see is larger player pools in practices/scrimmaging as clubs evaluate who they have (That's already been happening our club).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are misunderstanding
The new age group ranges must be I plenented BY the 26-27 season, there is no statement saying it cannot be implemented BEFORE 26-27...There will be be pilot programs and policy changes come Fall that will surprise those not reading between the lines.
Bottom line, work hard this summer so the choice is yours and not the club's.

Aside from maybe different faces showing up to practice here and there, and maybe a tournament with some mismatched players, the top teams at big clubs aren’t going to do anything different next year.

[Anonymous]

+1

[Anonymous]

How can clubs make the change for 25-26? You can’t have a player play down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can clubs make the change for 25-26? You can’t have a player play down.

An example would be having your Q3/4 2012's play with 2013's but enter a tournament at the 2012 level. So the "older" kids wouldn't be playing down. The "younger" kids would be playing up.

[Anonymous]

Reading the announcement from US Club, et al. yesterday reminded me, leagues don't have discretion to do whatever they want, so all this talk of SY+60 is moot. US Soccer gave them freedom to choose from three models: 1/1 (BY), 8/1 (SY), or 9/1 (SY), and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can clubs make the change for 25-26? You can’t have a player play down.

An example would be having your Q3/4 2012's play with 2013's but enter a tournament at the 2012 level. So the "older" kids wouldn't be playing down. The "younger" kids would be playing up.

Our club went ahead and restructured the top teams this way in the U-little age groups. So my daughter is now on a 14/15 team if incoming 5th graders that will play in the U12 2014 Age Group next year and then likely the U12 age group again the following year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the announcement from US Club, et al. yesterday reminded me, leagues don't have discretion to do whatever they want, so all this talk of SY+60 is moot. US Soccer gave them freedom to choose from three models: 1/1 (BY), 8/1 (SY), or 9/1 (SY), and nothing else.

Numbnut, SY+60 is 9/1. The +60 is just an additional rule like biobanding which any league can implement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading the announcement from US Club, et al. yesterday reminded me, leagues don't have discretion to do whatever they want, so all this talk of SY+60 is moot. US Soccer gave them freedom to choose from three models: 1/1 (BY), 8/1 (SY), or 9/1 (SY), and nothing else.

I think you should reread that document as well what was posted yesterday. Each federation member can make their leagues whatever they want. 1/1,8/1,9/1 were the ones recommended and are most likely what will be followed by the majority of leagues.

[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.

Why do you consider August birthdays whose school district happens to make them the youngest in their grade "playing down" to play within the 1 year window, but with BY all the Q1 & Q2 kids who were playing with kids in the grade below them were just fine? Were they also playing down?

[Anonymous]

What's crazy in this thread it would seem if your teammate was born the day after you, you are playing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why do you consider August birthdays whose school district happens to make them the youngest in their grade "playing down" to play within the 1 year window, but with BY all the Q1 & Q2 kids who were playing with kids in the grade below them were just fine? Were they also playing down?

What SY+60 does is address all trapped players and not allow players a grade older to play down in a lower grade. Even if technically they can because of their birthdate.

See why SY+60 is appealing? Teams are 100% grouped by grade and theres no trapped players. And SY+60 works nationwide.

The only group that isnt included is the regrades which nobody wants anyway.

The problem with a single 8/1 cutoff is there will still be a small number of trapped players and some kids a grade older with an Aug birthday will play down in the wrong age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People are misunderstanding
The new age group ranges must be I plenented BY the 26-27 season, there is no statement saying it cannot be implemented BEFORE 26-27...There will be be pilot programs and policy changes come Fall that will surprise those not reading between the lines.
Bottom line, work hard this summer so the choice is yours and not the club's.

Here we go back to the ECNL will start a year early debate! Love it.

So far USYS league Cal South is the only league to come out and say they are changing early (spring 26).