ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

If we're really going to get philosophical, it should be SY+42

SY + anything is just a different cutoff altogether. Yall are being silly like the MLSN BY within bioband dreamers.

Oh like peewee football! Age + weight. Let’s go! Solved it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

If we're really going to get philosophical, it should be SY+42

SY + anything is just a different cutoff altogether. Yall are being silly like the MLSN BY within bioband dreamers.

SY+30 with. 9/1 cutoff is the same thing as a single 8/1 cutoff. The only difference is that under SY+30 players born in Aug need to prove the grade that they're enrolled to play down with a younger age

It ends up being s better situation because no players are playing with the wrong grade.

[Anonymous]

It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

BY crazies trying to find something to be upset about

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

[Anonymous]

What's weird is the parents fighting against SY+30. This is because around here since the start date is 9/1 nothing changes for players. You only need a birthcert with SY+30 and with single 8/1 cutoff.

Where SY+30 with a 9/1 cutoff helps is in states like California who start on 8/1. In places like that Aug birthdays will need to provide proof of grade and a birthcert. This might not seem like that big of an issue but it becomes a problem when they get to recruitment age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

It’s really stupid to have a system rely on verifying supplementary and highly variable paperwork.

[Anonymous]

On top of all that with SY+60 coaches only have to ask players what grade they are in school and that's the group they play in.

Regrades will exclude themselves when they cant produce a valid birthcert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

It’s really stupid to have a system rely on verifying supplementary and highly variable paperwork.

There's no other way to do it if the goal is to completely address trapped players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's weird is the parents fighting against SY+30. This is because around here since the start date is 9/1 nothing changes for players. You only need a birthcert with SY+30 and with single 8/1 cutoff.

Where SY+30 with a 9/1 cutoff helps is in states like California who start on 8/1. In places like that Aug birthdays will need to provide proof of grade and a birthcert. This might not seem like that big of an issue but it becomes a problem when they get to recruitment age.

Have u heard? Cutoff is now 8/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

It’s really stupid to have a system rely on verifying supplementary and highly variable paperwork.

There's no other way to do it if the goal is to completely address trapped players.

That wasn’t the goal; it was to increase participation mainly at earlier ages than when trapped players start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

It’s really stupid to have a system rely on verifying supplementary and highly variable paperwork.

There's no other way to do it if the goal is to completely address trapped players.

That wasn’t the goal; it was to increase participation mainly at earlier ages than when trapped players start.

Different goals for different organizations. For USYS and AYSO you are correct. For GA/ECNL it was much more about eliminating trapped and aligning more with a recruiting calendar.

Also, it does appear that GA addressed age change at meeting but it wasnt an agenda item. It was sort of just announced in the general session and my DOC interpreted it as they were changing but did not know the date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s 8/1, so what are you still going on about?

Please point to the official link for GAs announcement.

What I'm going on about.

So you are trying to lobby for 9/1+30 for GA? Is it really so important to you?

Yes, it completely eliminates all issues with SY.

* Other than regrades and the .001% of schools with a July start date.

It’s really stupid to have a system rely on verifying supplementary and highly variable paperwork.

There's no other way to do it if the goal is to completely address trapped players.

That wasn’t the goal; it was to increase participation mainly at earlier ages than when trapped players start.

Different goals for different organizations. For USYS and AYSO you are correct. For GA/ECNL it was much more about eliminating trapped and aligning more with a recruiting calendar.

Also, it does appear that GA addressed age change at meeting but it wasnt an agenda item. It was sort of just announced in the general session and my DOC interpreted it as they were changing but did not know the date.

I think that’s what all the DOCs are interpreting. Anything disparate from 8/1 will be problematic.