ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

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

Well in hand. Thank you for caring. Had it in June. But you also realize with the majority of offers for the junior class are not given in the summer of their junior year right? Or is this just you being uniformed (again)

Tell me this. I have given you all the reasons why I am for the change and I don’t have a dog in the fight as I was blessed with a great kid who happens to be very good at soccer.

What are your reasons for opposing it so vehemently? Assuming you have any beyond self interest.

[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:

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.

“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.”

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

[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:

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.

Well in hand. Thank you for caring. Had it in June. But you also realize with the majority of offers for the junior class are not given in the summer of their junior year right? Or is this just you being uniformed (again)

Tell me this. I have given you all the reasons why I am for the change and I don’t have a dog in the fight as I was blessed with a great kid who happens to be very good at soccer.

What are your reasons for opposing it so vehemently? Assuming you have any beyond self interest.

Congratulations.

Why do you care about the showcase and seniors having timeless HS seniors behavior then?

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

🤔 maybe…

But if that’s the case, and the PP’s kid has an offer in hand, why are they b-ing about their kids teammates that are checked out because they’ve got offers and are seniors? That seems pretty specific about their kid, their team, their club, their teammates and making it global.

[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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

🤔 maybe…

But if that’s the case, and the PP’s kid has an offer in hand, why are they b-ing about their kids teammates that are checked out because they’ve got offers and are seniors? That seems pretty specific about their kid, their team, their club, their teammates and making it global.

Because getting an offer is the beginning of the journey and not the end. She wants to play more games, with motivated teammates, against the best competition so she is ready to compete at the next level. Not sure why that is hard to understand or controversial.

[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:

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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

Sounds like your club sucks and isn’t player focused.

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

🤔 maybe…

But if that’s the case, and the PP’s kid has an offer in hand, why are they b-ing about their kids teammates that are checked out because they’ve got offers and are seniors? That seems pretty specific about their kid, their team, their club, their teammates and making it global.

Because getting an offer is the beginning of the journey and not the end. She wants to play more games, with motivated teammates, against the best competition so she is ready to compete at the next level. Not sure why that is hard to understand or controversial.

Its not. And totally reasonable.

What the issue is, is blaming other people for not sacrificing for your kid because their situation, goals or motivations changed. And then scaling that issue into an issue for the whole that needs to be addressed via age cutoff, assuming that will align other kids’ situations / goals / motivations with your kids (and yours) in order to better affect your kid’s outcome.

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

🤔 maybe…

But if that’s the case, and the PP’s kid has an offer in hand, why are they b-ing about their kids teammates that are checked out because they’ve got offers and are seniors? That seems pretty specific about their kid, their team, their club, their teammates and making it global.

Because getting an offer is the beginning of the journey and not the end. She wants to play more games, with motivated teammates, against the best competition so she is ready to compete at the next level. Not sure why that is hard to understand or controversial.

Its not. And totally reasonable.

What the issue is, is blaming other people for not sacrificing for your kid because their situation, goals or motivations changed. And then scaling that issue into an issue for the whole that needs to be addressed via age cutoff, assuming that will align other kids’ situations / goals / motivations with your kids (and yours) in order to better affect your kid’s outcome.

This is just a weird invented complaint out of left field that is clearly trying to deflect from the original issue.

[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:

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.

“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.”

Dude, keep up. The pp is hating the game not the player.

🤔 maybe…

But if that’s the case, and the PP’s kid has an offer in hand, why are they b-ing about their kids teammates that are checked out because they’ve got offers and are seniors? That seems pretty specific about their kid, their team, their club, their teammates and making it global.

Because getting an offer is the beginning of the journey and not the end. She wants to play more games, with motivated teammates, against the best competition so she is ready to compete at the next level. Not sure why that is hard to understand or controversial.

Its not. And totally reasonable.

What the issue is, is blaming other people for not sacrificing for your kid because their situation, goals or motivations changed. And then scaling that issue into an issue for the whole that needs to be addressed via age cutoff, assuming that will align other kids’ situations / goals / motivations with your kids (and yours) in order to better affect your kid’s outcome.

This is just a weird invented complaint out of left field that is clearly trying to deflect from the original issue.

“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.”

[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:

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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

If it's any comfort, I believe the podcast when it says the conversation among serious people doesn't really mirror the conversation here. The pro-BY decision makers don't deny all these issues like their advocates do here.

[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:

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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

Um. If your kid has an offer already, and you’re working hard to get more, you sure as hell ought to want your kid to shine and not be buried on some team at a showcase.

[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:

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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

Um. If your kid has an offer already, and you’re working hard to get more, you sure as hell ought to want your kid to shine and not be buried on some team at a showcase.

If you dont know, the way Showcases work is based on flights. The top teams play A/B, the OK teams play C/D/E and the less developed teams play lower. IF your team is not in one of the top flights, then the number of coaches that watch, falls off a cliff. If you are at a team like Solar or Surf the #18 kid is still in the running for P4 offer. If your kid is #3 on an F flight team they probably wont be seen. You would MUCH rather be average on a Solar than top on a middling team.

[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:

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.

This may be my favorite uniformed comment yet........what other juniors? From the RL team? From the magic transfer genie? You know they dont bring up juniors from the age below right? Because they already have a team.

You ask if I wouldn't want her to play with a watered down team where she could shine? My response is absolutely not. I would rather her be the #7 kid on a top 10 team than the star of a #150 team all day every day.

My kid wants to play. As much as she can and against the best competition with the best teammates. While she already has her offer, if she didn't, as many juniors dont, she would want the opportunity to showcase her skills as often as possible and to play with other players giving their best who were hungry and still trying to get better and get offers.

I swear I think the people against this move must be parents where their oldest is a u11 Q1 birthday because they dont seem to get how all this works at the elite level.

If your kid is on a top 10 team for B/G07/06 and you’re still hunting offers, they’re not #7.