ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

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

Spends on when you were born 12/31/11 plays 11s 01/01/12 plays 12 one day makes a big difference. Especially now if your bday is July 31.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Spends on when you were born 12/31/11 plays 11s 01/01/12 plays 12 one day makes a big difference. Especially now if your bday is July 31.

The vibe, tho, goes way beyond those realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She’s not trapped. She’s still at the 9-vs-9 level. But even though she’s a Q4, she’s tall and one of the fastest girls. Concern is if they move her down, she won’t develop any soccer skills and will then get passed up when the other girls catch up to her in physical development.

Agree that we (as her parents) don’t have much leverage. She’s a good player, but not the top player on her current team. And presumably would drop from a top-5 player to a top-8 player after the age change when some players on the older team get realigned by age change.

It’s obviously not a horrible situation for her, and I’m glad August kids won’t be trapped. Just don’t agree with the narrative that parents can simply decide to play their kids in whichever age group the parents want their kid to play in (when it’s the club/coaches make that final decision).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, if the arbitrary 12 month window is 8/1 - 7/31 then an August birthday isn't "playing down" just because only one-sixth (Aug and Sept birthdays in Virginia) of their team is in a higher grade in school than the rest. No one considered all the Jan-July birthday kids as "playing down" before when the rest of their team was a grade lower in school. You are either playing within your 12 month window or you are playing up to be with your school friends, not playing down. Playing down is not allowed by current rules.

[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: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.

Again, if the arbitrary 12 month window is 8/1 - 7/31 then an August birthday isn't "playing down" just because only one-sixth (Aug and Sept birthdays in Virginia) of their team is in a higher grade in school than the rest. No one considered all the Jan-July birthday kids as "playing down" before when the rest of their team was a grade lower in school. You are either playing within your 12 month window or you are playing up to be with your school friends, not playing down. Playing down is not allowed by current rules.

The issue is grade misalignment -- which yes already was prevalent in BY but this just underscores how it's not fixed.

[Anonymous]

Not trying to stir the pot. Just looking for some info because these press releases are not all that informative. I am specifically asking about a kid w/ September 2011 Birthday. Virginia schools have an end of September cutoff, so she is going into 9th grade. Same as a June 2011. I keep hearing the term force up, and it sounds like that means she would be “forced up” to play with her class. Is this true? Not that this is a force up, because she wants to play with the kids in her class, and it would really stink during recruiting if she had to play down because recruiters looking at her school year would be looking in an age group above. Everyone makes this sound like it is only effecting a small number of kids, but 6 of 18 girls from her team this year are in the same spot. Just hoping someone can clarify that a sept birthday automatically gets to play up with their grade even if born after that the Aug 1 date. Thanks for any help

[Anonymous]

If the kid is good enough to play up, the club should be able to allow it.

[Anonymous]

Ugh. This is what I get for trying to get legitimate facts on this thread. Play up? Good enough? Should be able to? You mean continue to play with the team she has been on for years (good enough?)? Play with her current grade (play up?), which this rule was supposed to facilitate? I guess I should have been more specific. What is the RULE? Does this rule specify that kids play with their CURRENT grade UNLESS they are in a grade LOWER than they are supposed to be, i.e, held back? Otherwise, what does the term “force up” mean that the USYS announcements reference? What does USYS say about this situation? Clearly they contemplated what happens to the kids that are past this arbitrary cutoff but not past their state’s cutoff for grade. If they didn’t consider what to do with these kids then they are incompetent. Like I said, this is not an insignificant amount of kids. Why can’t they just address what happens to the kids that are in the same class as the June kids but after their cutoff. What’s the rule? Is there a rule?

[Anonymous]

“We believe there's an opportunity for college to be the premier U-23 league in the world," U.S. Soccer CEO JT Batson told ESPN.

News of the committee's formation comes at a transformative and uncertain time for college sports at large.

Don’t worry Jan families your kids will get the advantage again their senior year of college.

If they make it that far hahhahahhah

August kids will rule the world of US youth soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the kid is good enough to play up, the club should be able to allow it.

Exactly. My daughter’s 2011 ECNL team is going to nationals and has two starters who are 2012 and 2013. Good kids can always play up the just have to be actually good not parent goggles good.

[Anonymous]

So, no one knows the rule? You guys have been debating this on this thread for 1041 pages? Why are you bothering if there is no answer. Absolutely clown show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kid is good enough to play up, the club should be able to allow it.

Exactly. My daughter’s 2011 ECNL team is going to nationals and has two starters who are 2012 and 2013. Good kids can always play up the just have to be actually good not parent goggles good.

Congrats on your Bethesda team that has 2012s and 2013s better than the 11s. I guess you are saying the 11 kids are parent goggles good, but not good enough to be better that a 2013? I am sure the other 2011 Bethesda parents appreciated your comment. That should make for a good conversation at Nationals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, no one knows the rule? You guys have been debating this on this thread for 1041 pages? Why are you bothering if there is no answer. Absolutely clown show.

The rules about what specifically ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kid is good enough to play up, the club should be able to allow it.

Exactly. My daughter’s 2011 ECNL team is going to nationals and has two starters who are 2012 and 2013. Good kids can always play up the just have to be actually good not parent goggles good.

Congrats on your Bethesda team that has 2012s and 2013s better than the 11s. I guess you are saying the 11 kids are parent goggles good, but not good enough to be better that a 2013? I am sure the other 2011 Bethesda parents appreciated your comment. That should make for a good conversation at Nationals.

Not what I said, if your kid is actually good they can play up. Mak Whitman before she was famous played up 3 years on a ECNL team and scored a hatrick.

But yes it might be hard for parents to admit to themselves but there are kids younger than their kids who are better players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. This is what I get for trying to get legitimate facts on this thread. Play up? Good enough? Should be able to? You mean continue to play with the team she has been on for years (good enough?)? Play with her current grade (play up?), which this rule was supposed to facilitate? I guess I should have been more specific. What is the RULE? Does this rule specify that kids play with their CURRENT grade UNLESS they are in a grade LOWER than they are supposed to be, i.e, held back? Otherwise, what does the term “force up” mean that the USYS announcements reference? What does USYS say about this situation? Clearly they contemplated what happens to the kids that are past this arbitrary cutoff but not past their state’s cutoff for grade. If they didn’t consider what to do with these kids then they are incompetent. Like I said, this is not an insignificant amount of kids. Why can’t they just address what happens to the kids that are in the same class as the June kids but after their cutoff. What’s the rule? Is there a rule?

It will be club specific for you. As a Sept birthday, there is nothing in the rules that says she can’t continue to play on her current team. I doubt your club will move those girls so it likely won’t impact you at all.

The new rule established the age range per grouping. For instance, Aug 1, 2012 July 31 2013 will be considered U14 starting during the 26/27 season. The rule says nothing about grades, and that’s because there are so many cutoffs between states, etc. So don’t look at the grade, look at the birthday. Your Sept kid is on the right side of the cutoff for soccer because she has the option to play with her grade. She will technically be U15 come 26/27, and she can play (and same with the other girls) with the U16 team that she is currently on.

Same with all the Aug kids in a Sept 1 school start date. Those kids can play with their correct grade as opposed to being “forced” to play with the grade below (which would have happened with the Sept 1 cutoff). They would be forced to play with the grade below in that instance because you are not allowed to play down an age group (i.e a U14 cannot play on a U13 team).