ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow!! Did everyone see the new CST post?
This is why ECNL is pushing for this move.

NCAA is operating like a pro league now…

NCAA D1 will eliminate National Letter of Intent.
• No more signing day moments
• College coaches can easily get rid of players & verbal committed recruits quicker
• You're an employee on a semester to Semester evaluation now more than ever.

Sounds like a better reason to align to birth year if its a pro-league.

But CST is 50% clickbait, 50% after the fact truthisms, and a bonus 50% wanabee guruisms.

This one is clickbait.

Its just an attempt by NCAA to find ways to gain longer term athletic commitment in the face of the House settlement and moves like Jayden Daniels' and pay lip service to amateurism. The issue is that they'll try to use scholarships in place of athletic assistance to try to slow the transfer process down, and that sounds like another lawsuit NCAA will lose despite being on solid legal ground. Free-market capitalism and sports betting are powerful opponents. Too bat the actual professional leagues are protected from them.

[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:

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.”

You are reading into it if you think they are blaming the kids. They are blaming the situation the kids were put into. Come on, pay attention.

[Anonymous]

D1 Council is making U19 extremely relevant.

https://x.com/imyouthsoccer/status/1844029053734416625

[Anonymous]

This is nuts. So kids are no longer receiving scholarships on a year to year basis? Now it’s semester to semester???

[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:

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.

You just inadvertently made my case. While I am not blaming anyone, if she were playing with her school year, NONE of this would be happening in the first place! Our whole soccer feeder system in the US is based on schooling (middle school, high school, college) and not youth academies. To align with the way our whole infrastructure is already set up is just common sense. Again, I ask, what are the legitimate reasons not to align with the way we are ALREADY SET UP?

You don't know that! This is where the whole "trapped player" argument falls apart for SY advocacy. It's a counterfactual. It's "If not for my child's birth month, the outcome would be different."

I dont know what? That if it were school year she would be playing with hungry juniors instead of unmotivated seniors? Yes I do. That if it were school year she would have more opportunities to play in Showcases her junior year? Yes I do. I have zero clue what you mean by "falling apart" or what is "counterfactual". It would be helpful if you could better articulate what your objections are because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I doubt I can change your point of view, you're invest in it for good reason, and its totally ok for us to disagree. What I am saying is that you're making assumptions about would could have been, and assuming they are facts or knowns. They're not.

Good luck to your daughter this year, and I hope her club finds players for her that match her ambitions to replace the ones that don't. Regardless of our points of view, I'll be rooting for her success.

And yet you spent your morning trying to attack something that is excepted by all but the most belligerent, that the recruiting process is tricky for trapped kids while you had no dog in the fight. Well done DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:D1 Council is making U19 extremely relevant.

https://x.com/imyouthsoccer/status/1844029053734416625

No letter of intent means college could drop or add players until the day they step on campus.

It also means players can change colleges up until the day they step on campus (NIL $$$ anyone)

For youth soccer this means senior year showcases and league games just because relevant again.

[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:

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.

You just inadvertently made my case. While I am not blaming anyone, if she were playing with her school year, NONE of this would be happening in the first place! Our whole soccer feeder system in the US is based on schooling (middle school, high school, college) and not youth academies. To align with the way our whole infrastructure is already set up is just common sense. Again, I ask, what are the legitimate reasons not to align with the way we are ALREADY SET UP?

You don't know that! This is where the whole "trapped player" argument falls apart for SY advocacy. It's a counterfactual. It's "If not for my child's birth month, the outcome would be different."

I dont know what? That if it were school year she would be playing with hungry juniors instead of unmotivated seniors? Yes I do. That if it were school year she would have more opportunities to play in Showcases her junior year? Yes I do. I have zero clue what you mean by "falling apart" or what is "counterfactual". It would be helpful if you could better articulate what your objections are because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I doubt I can change your point of view, you're invest in it for good reason, and its totally ok for us to disagree. What I am saying is that you're making assumptions about would could have been, and assuming they are facts or knowns. They're not.

Good luck to your daughter this year, and I hope her club finds players for her that match her ambitions to replace the ones that don't. Regardless of our points of view, I'll be rooting for her success.

And yet you spent your morning trying to attack something that is excepted by all but the most belligerent, that the recruiting process is tricky for trapped kids while you had no dog in the fight. Well done DCUM.

What does this mean? That only parents with q3 and q4 kids who are at clubs that let them languish should have a say?

I’ve got a q3 DC in this process and disagree with the SY position. Lots of parents of q3 and q4 parents have a different opinion than the SY or bust parents.

[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:

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.

Like PP said, this sounds like a club and player issue. Not a systemic one.

Your player should already have a list of coaches in dialogue. And if your club can’t fill a couple spots for seniors that drop off to stay in competitive flights at a showcase, that’s a club issue.

While replacing 2-3 seniors, or just going with a limited roster, is not a huge issue, the basic fact is that seniors are inherently unmotivated. It is the main reason why there are significantly fewer showcases for U18/U19 in the first place, and, what showcases they do have are sparsely attended compared to the U17 ones. These are just facts that are easily provable with a basic Google search.

Inherently unmotivated seniors is very different from "my kids team is now in Flight Scrubtastic"

That is fair. Our record is significantly worse this year than last which may be a club issue or we are a victim of our own success, but there is a reason that attendance at the few showcases that are offered at U18/U19 are more sparsely attended than U17.

Again, recruiters don't walk around picking players at showcases. They have a list of players that they're in communication with and plan to look at.

As long as your trapped junior is attending senior showcases and playing well the coaches they're in communication with will see them.

This is true! But what if your best players who commit don’t play? Many kids get noticed when a coach is watching someone else and notice another player.

My friend was recruited to CAL because a coach was watching another player from his team. He was not on their radar at anytime prior.

[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:

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.

You just inadvertently made my case. While I am not blaming anyone, if she were playing with her school year, NONE of this would be happening in the first place! Our whole soccer feeder system in the US is based on schooling (middle school, high school, college) and not youth academies. To align with the way our whole infrastructure is already set up is just common sense. Again, I ask, what are the legitimate reasons not to align with the way we are ALREADY SET UP?

You don't know that! This is where the whole "trapped player" argument falls apart for SY advocacy. It's a counterfactual. It's "If not for my child's birth month, the outcome would be different."

I dont know what? That if it were school year she would be playing with hungry juniors instead of unmotivated seniors? Yes I do. That if it were school year she would have more opportunities to play in Showcases her junior year? Yes I do. I have zero clue what you mean by "falling apart" or what is "counterfactual". It would be helpful if you could better articulate what your objections are because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I doubt I can change your point of view, you're invest in it for good reason, and its totally ok for us to disagree. What I am saying is that you're making assumptions about would could have been, and assuming they are facts or knowns. They're not.

Good luck to your daughter this year, and I hope her club finds players for her that match her ambitions to replace the ones that don't. Regardless of our points of view, I'll be rooting for her success.

And yet you spent your morning trying to attack something that is excepted by all but the most belligerent, that the recruiting process is tricky for trapped kids while you had no dog in the fight. Well done DCUM.

What does this mean? That only parents with q3 and q4 kids who are at clubs that let them languish should have a say?

I’ve got a q3 DC in this process and disagree with the SY position. Lots of parents of q3 and q4 parents have a different opinion than the SY or bust parents.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D1 Council is making U19 extremely relevant.

https://x.com/imyouthsoccer/status/1844029053734416625

No letter of intent means college could drop or add players until the day they step on campus.

It also means players can change colleges up until the day they step on campus (NIL $$$ anyone)

For youth soccer this means senior year showcases and league games just because relevant again.

Would it not be beneficial to go U15-18 with school year cut offs. And for ECNL to add a U19 for college kids who did not get a scholarship? Kids can still goto local college and play soccer and try and get recruited? Have their own showcases? If the ncaa is going to be adding/dropping players. Maybe it helps college to get a kid and have them play an additional year of ECNL rather than waste a roster spot or eligibility?

I know the pro birth year people have something to say about this?…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is nuts. So kids are no longer receiving scholarships on a year to year basis? Now it’s semester to semester???

No of course not

[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:

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.

You just inadvertently made my case. While I am not blaming anyone, if she were playing with her school year, NONE of this would be happening in the first place! Our whole soccer feeder system in the US is based on schooling (middle school, high school, college) and not youth academies. To align with the way our whole infrastructure is already set up is just common sense. Again, I ask, what are the legitimate reasons not to align with the way we are ALREADY SET UP?

You don't know that! This is where the whole "trapped player" argument falls apart for SY advocacy. It's a counterfactual. It's "If not for my child's birth month, the outcome would be different."

I dont know what? That if it were school year she would be playing with hungry juniors instead of unmotivated seniors? Yes I do. That if it were school year she would have more opportunities to play in Showcases her junior year? Yes I do. I have zero clue what you mean by "falling apart" or what is "counterfactual". It would be helpful if you could better articulate what your objections are because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I doubt I can change your point of view, you're invest in it for good reason, and its totally ok for us to disagree. What I am saying is that you're making assumptions about would could have been, and assuming they are facts or knowns. They're not.

Good luck to your daughter this year, and I hope her club finds players for her that match her ambitions to replace the ones that don't. Regardless of our points of view, I'll be rooting for her success.

And yet you spent your morning trying to attack something that is excepted by all but the most belligerent, that the recruiting process is tricky for trapped kids while you had no dog in the fight. Well done DCUM.

What does this mean? That only parents with q3 and q4 kids who are at clubs that let them languish should have a say?

I’ve got a q3 DC in this process and disagree with the SY position. Lots of parents of q3 and q4 parents have a different opinion than the SY or bust parents.

No.

You are who I want to hear from. Why do you have a different opinion? What is it about birth year that you think is better than school year, especially if you have a Q3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D1 Council is making U19 extremely relevant.

https://x.com/imyouthsoccer/status/1844029053734416625

No letter of intent means college could drop or add players until the day they step on campus.

It also means players can change colleges up until the day they step on campus (NIL $$$ anyone)

For youth soccer this means senior year showcases and league games just because relevant again.

Would it not be beneficial to go U15-18 with school year cut offs. And for ECNL to add a U19 for college kids who did not get a scholarship? Kids can still goto local college and play soccer and try and get recruited? Have their own showcases? If the ncaa is going to be adding/dropping players. Maybe it helps college to get a kid and have them play an additional year of ECNL rather than waste a roster spot or eligibility?

I know the pro birth year people have something to say about this?…

Birth year people will say that because NCAA just got rid of the Letter of Intent it means that players can no longer slack off their senior year just because they previously committed to a school.

College coaches can continue looking for better players all the way up to the minute their recruits step on campus. It also means that players that have already verbally committed to a college coach can change to a different school up until the day they step on campus.

Either way it means league games and showcases played as a senior in HS suddenly mean much more than they used to.

Trapped players that were Juniors playing with Seniors will get looked at 2x by recruiters their senior year.

[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:

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.

You just inadvertently made my case. While I am not blaming anyone, if she were playing with her school year, NONE of this would be happening in the first place! Our whole soccer feeder system in the US is based on schooling (middle school, high school, college) and not youth academies. To align with the way our whole infrastructure is already set up is just common sense. Again, I ask, what are the legitimate reasons not to align with the way we are ALREADY SET UP?

You don't know that! This is where the whole "trapped player" argument falls apart for SY advocacy. It's a counterfactual. It's "If not for my child's birth month, the outcome would be different."

I dont know what? That if it were school year she would be playing with hungry juniors instead of unmotivated seniors? Yes I do. That if it were school year she would have more opportunities to play in Showcases her junior year? Yes I do. I have zero clue what you mean by "falling apart" or what is "counterfactual". It would be helpful if you could better articulate what your objections are because I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

I doubt I can change your point of view, you're invest in it for good reason, and its totally ok for us to disagree. What I am saying is that you're making assumptions about would could have been, and assuming they are facts or knowns. They're not.

Good luck to your daughter this year, and I hope her club finds players for her that match her ambitions to replace the ones that don't. Regardless of our points of view, I'll be rooting for her success.

And yet you spent your morning trying to attack something that is excepted by all but the most belligerent, that the recruiting process is tricky for trapped kids while you had no dog in the fight. Well done DCUM.

What does this mean? That only parents with q3 and q4 kids who are at clubs that let them languish should have a say?

I’ve got a q3 DC in this process and disagree with the SY position. Lots of parents of q3 and q4 parents have a different opinion than the SY or bust parents.

So what is your position? And why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D1 Council is making U19 extremely relevant.

https://x.com/imyouthsoccer/status/1844029053734416625

No letter of intent means college could drop or add players until the day they step on campus.

It also means players can change colleges up until the day they step on campus (NIL $$$ anyone)

For youth soccer this means senior year showcases and league games just because relevant again.

Would it not be beneficial to go U15-18 with school year cut offs. And for ECNL to add a U19 for college kids who did not get a scholarship? Kids can still goto local college and play soccer and try and get recruited? Have their own showcases? If the ncaa is going to be adding/dropping players. Maybe it helps college to get a kid and have them play an additional year of ECNL rather than waste a roster spot or eligibility?

I know the pro birth year people have something to say about this?…

Birth year people will say that because NCAA just got rid of the Letter of Intent it means that players can no longer slack off their senior year just because they previously committed to a school.

College coaches can continue looking for better players all the way up to the minute their recruits step on campus. It also means that players that have already verbally committed to a college coach can change to a different school up until the day they step on campus.

Either way it means league games and showcases played as a senior in HS suddenly mean much more than they used to.

Trapped players that were Juniors playing with Seniors will get looked at 2x by recruiters their senior year.

If trapped seniors need to find a new team that year, with continued recruiting implications, won't they be freaking out even more than now?