ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

What is it you want? A soccer handicap? “My October kid should get the ball back if they lose it to a March born opponent.” “My kid should be on the top team despite not being good enough to compete against that teams opponents because of my kid’s December birthday.”

There are, on every team, a Q4 kid that deserves to be there despite the age gap. And there is a January kid that is short for their age that had to work their tail off to make the team. This isn’t some sort of calendar date magic.

Of course the objective isn't from me, it is what the USSF wants. Surprised you missed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am curious as to what the other big ECNL clubs do for trapped players their high school 8th grade season? For our club, (large top 50 girls club nationally) they form a team of other trapped players from the “A/B/C/D” teams. Obviously this is not ideal as the level of competition is not great. For some reason we dont follow the 2 players playing down rule.

Out club, top 20 nationally, doesn’t allow HS soccer. So they fill that portion of season with friendlies, travel, extra showcase and tournaments, and matches against boys teams from our club and other clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the pro-BY people in this thread are the sharpest knives in the drawer. As the podcast said, honestly, the remaining serious argument is simply between those who think SY is worth the mess of the change and those who don't. Serious people, with engaged brains and not blinded by some personal interest, overwhelmingly agree that SY is better for the long term health of the sport and that BY did not turn out to provide any of the promised benefits. But not only would the change cause some headaches in the shuffle, some older kids might quit in year one. So there may be an initial decline in participation among travel players before the intake benefits make up for it. Imagine being a bottom half of the team player with a Jan-Mar birthday who gets pushed down. This could be the change that pushes you to quit.

The proSY is the epitome of blinded personal interest. Why does the pro-SY group keep having to make up the position of the other side and blow off the other side’s stated opinions? (Hint…personal interest)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

What is it you want? A soccer handicap? “My October kid should get the ball back if they lose it to a March born opponent.” “My kid should be on the top team despite not being good enough to compete against that teams opponents because of my kid’s December birthday.”

There are, on every team, a Q4 kid that deserves to be there despite the age gap. And there is a January kid that is short for their age that had to work their tail off to make the team. This isn’t some sort of calendar date magic.

Of course the objective isn't from me, it is what the USSF wants. Surprised you missed that.

The point PP was making appears to be that the coaches and programs aren’t missing that objective from the PDI, but rather people are wanting special treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

Your argument makes no sense. If a 2008 Q3/4 player drops down to play with 2009, you've just given them a RAE advantage over 2009 Q1/2. Stop trying to use RAE as a reason to make this change because RAE is always in play no matter how you slice the cut off. There will always be older and younger kids on the team. No coach is looking at birth month to make decisions on who gets playing time. They are looking at who has the skills and who's putting the work. If your teams coach is looking at a players birth month to determine the starting lineup, he's an idiot.

RAE is a BS argument made up by people to justify a disadvantage for late bloomers. Being a late bloomer isn't based on birth month, it's based on genetics. If you want someone to blame for your kid developing late, look at yourself and your genetic makeup.

The PDI declaring BY has an objective that states, "Parents and coaches should have an increased awareness of a player’s birth month
relative to his or her peer group and level of performance." Fair to say this objective has been ignored by coaches/programs?

What is it you want? A soccer handicap? “My October kid should get the ball back if they lose it to a March born opponent.” “My kid should be on the top team despite not being good enough to compete against that teams opponents because of my kid’s December birthday.”

There are, on every team, a Q4 kid that deserves to be there despite the age gap. And there is a January kid that is short for their age that had to work their tail off to make the team. This isn’t some sort of calendar date magic.

Of course the objective isn't from me, it is what the USSF wants. Surprised you missed that.

The point PP was making appears to be that the coaches and programs aren’t missing that objective from the PDI, but rather people are wanting special treatment.

If they aren't missing the objective, what are they doing to address it? Seems the USSF churns out random suggestions that clubs/leagues don't need to consider, like when to establish age age cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

[Anonymous]

It’s sad to say I followed this thread for 118 pages. But follow I did.
I have an August birthday kid. And while the change could benefit them, honestly it won’t really matter at this point, U15. They are still on the very small side even compared to 2011 players at their level. The RAE has to be contested early, when the big players go to better teams with better coaches and play more. In fact, that is exactly what we saw when DC was 7-8-9 years old. No playing time despite skill, due only to size, and it definitely adversely impact coaching and future trajectory.
The other aspect of the argument is trapped players. Here is where I agree ECNL has completely changed the college recruiting landscape, and it is not good to be a trapped player on club in high school. You CAN get in front of coaches, but it is harder. And what is different in the US vs ROW, except maybe in Asia, is the college admissions game. Super high stakes, ridiculously competitive, zero sum at many schools. So lots of these families, er, kids, are using soccer for an edge there. Even if they never see the field on game day. And THAT is why there is so much passion around this subject. Not for the 0.001 who will play pro, but for that college admissions boost. Particularly true for girls where transfers and internationals are less prominent.

[Anonymous]

My issue with this thread is with the assumption that ECNL’s 8/1 proposed cutoff is the same as SY and then proceeding to discuss all of the benefits of SY over BY. Many Q3 players are not trapped and the 8/1 cutoff would seem to just create a new set of issues for those players. Sure, they could play up with their current team and SY, but as all of the cynical parents like to point out, the clubs aren’t always making decisions in the best interest of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

Intellectually dishonest it is then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

My daughter is living the junior year issue right now. One of two juniors. We are playing one showcase. And several of the seniors aren't going. Why? Because they already have their offers. Not to mention that there is very little motivation from the seniors. They are missing practices etc etc.

But you are not intellectually dishonest.............that would presuppose you had an intellect to begin with, which you clearly dont if you think the junior year issue is "made up". Hopefully you are just a troll because it would be scary to think there are people out there that with that little understanding of the sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

My daughter is living the junior year issue right now. One of two juniors. We are playing one showcase. And several of the seniors aren't going. Why? Because they already have their offers. Not to mention that there is very little motivation from the seniors. They are missing practices etc etc.

But you are not intellectually dishonest.............that would presuppose you had an intellect to begin with, which you clearly dont if you think the junior year issue is "made up". Hopefully you are just a troll because it would be scary to think there are people out there that with that little understanding of the sport.

Your kid is a junior right? Where are their offers? It’s October.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

My daughter is living the junior year issue right now. One of two juniors. We are playing one showcase. And several of the seniors aren't going. Why? Because they already have their offers. Not to mention that there is very little motivation from the seniors. They are missing practices etc etc.

But you are not intellectually dishonest.............that would presuppose you had an intellect to begin with, which you clearly dont if you think the junior year issue is "made up". Hopefully you are just a troll because it would be scary to think there are people out there that with that little understanding of the sport.

You do realize what a showcase is right? If the senior isn’t going to the showcase, wouldn’t you want the other juniors filling the roster at practice with your kid?

Wouldn’t you want them NOT on the field if your kid doesn’t have looks or offers?

Blaming other kids success for your kids failure is kind of lame.

[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:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I actually think the loudest parents against are those of the mediocre Q1 and Q2 kids who are holding on to a top team by the skin of their teeth and dont want to compete against the Q3 and Q4 from above team dropping down for fear of pushing them down a team. If we are going to reward one group or the other, reward the Q3 and Q4 for competing without benefit of RAE relative to their birth year instead of the Q1 and Q2 who had the benefit of RAE and still can’t distinguish themselves.

And in 2 years we just flip flop that argument for the Q1 and Q2 kids who are competing without the benefit of RAE…this is such an awful rational either way.

Yeah and then the Q1 and Q2 kids will complain about being trapped in 8th grade and hurt in their recruitment their junior and senior years………..oh wait………….

That wasn’t the argument you made. But nice try.

You are right. My argument is RAE will be there regardless so dont screw over kids in 3 out of their last 5 years of youth soccer just to keep some “status quo” that benefits your kid who happened to be born in Q1. If we are looking at pure fairness SY is BY FAR the most fair. The alignment with the rest of the world makes no sense and the “disruption” argument is just lazy. The whole USYNT argument is a total red herring. Those kids get identified early and easily. you know why? They are the kid playing two years up. Easy Peezy. I would love to know how many “against” have Q1/Q2 birth year mediocre kids……………I know how i would bet

I don’t have a Q1 kid, that’s a lazy argument.

Your argument isn’t benign, it’s actually “screw other kids, not mine.” It’s fine to have that position, it’s not fine to pretend it is altruism. It’s not.

Fairness has nothing to do with this. This is a competitive sport and you’re advocating for a change to benefit your kid, fine, but it’s not unfair that your kid was born when they were born.

I will try to simplify this for you since you are either obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

CURRENT

Q1/Q2
Slight Benefit of RAE


Q3/Q4
Slight Adverse RAE
Trapped 8th grade year
Less programming Junior Year
New team senior year
Some negative recruiting impacts
Some probable issues at early ages with participation

PROPOSED

Q1/Q2
Slight Adverse RAE

Q3/Q4
Slight Benefit of RAE

So yes my argument is to slightly screw over one group to prevent another group from being really screwed over.

If school year was based on birth year I would not be saying a peep. But it isn’t.

For the record I do have a trapped Q4 but she will continue to play on her current team regardless so this change has zero impact on her personally.

You call people intellectually dishonest and then make up a junior year issue for trapped kids.

Confuse an individual issue with a class issue.

And then throw in a “probable” for good cause.

Sure…

My daughter is living the junior year issue right now. One of two juniors. We are playing one showcase. And several of the seniors aren't going. Why? Because they already have their offers. Not to mention that there is very little motivation from the seniors. They are missing practices etc etc.

But you are not intellectually dishonest.............that would presuppose you had an intellect to begin with, which you clearly dont if you think the junior year issue is "made up". Hopefully you are just a troll because it would be scary to think there are people out there that with that little understanding of the sport.

You do realize what a showcase is right? If the senior isn’t going to the showcase, wouldn’t you want the other juniors filling the roster at practice with your kid?

Wouldn’t you want them NOT on the field if your kid doesn’t have looks or offers?

Blaming other kids success for your kids failure is kind of lame.

Lame is suggesting they blamed other kids when they didn't.