ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple fact, No hard rule on grade to constrain the league itself. League, Club, coaches, and players all need flexibility within the Aug to July 12 window rule to make their decisions on a case by case and year by year basis

Simple fact, you have no idea what clubs will do. The only thing thats been announced is changing from BY to SY

Clubs will pick the biggest, fastest, best players like they always do but now from Aug -Jul. Grades never mattered even if you want them to.

No they wont because players a grade older but playing down a grade are unrecruitable.

I can get behind to an extent of what you’re saying for showcases and clubs will want kids aligned by grade as much as possible and make recommendations but for league play they will want to win and compete at the highest level possible. Theres no way clubs would turn down a better player because a player won’t be recruitable?

And there's no way college coaches would totally ignore a kid playing in the correct age group but different grade, especially if that's the best team they could get on to get seen. Not all clubs/markets/leagues are equal.

100% a senior playing U17 because that’s there age group won’t be told sorry you’re really looking good out there but I wanted to watch you at U19 showcase that all committed players are skipping anyways.
And guess what if that is an issue they can just goto the U19 showcase next time. Why? Because they have the ability to play age group or up.

College coaches dont care about age. All they care about is when players will graduate. It nobody wants a player graduating in year X but is playing down at the Y level. Unrecruitable

Very recruitable if that player is like scoring all the goals or making all the saves.

First question EVERY college coach would ask themself is why is this player playing down a grade. Second question theyd ask themself is how does a player playing diwn a grade compare to other players playing the correct grade level that they could also recruit.

Both questions have no answer. Instead of worrying about it they'll just move on to the next player.

Because these kids will go to the showcases OR other events in their correct grade. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

highlight clips don't show the grades of any players.

[Anonymous]

It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Dont understand the logic in your comment? Really isnt a prefect solution. I dont see how a kid is not recruitable, what I think we should all realize that not all kids are recruitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple fact, No hard rule on grade to constrain the league itself. League, Club, coaches, and players all need flexibility within the Aug to July 12 window rule to make their decisions on a case by case and year by year basis

Simple fact, you have no idea what clubs will do. The only thing thats been announced is changing from BY to SY

Clubs will pick the biggest, fastest, best players like they always do but now from Aug -Jul. Grades never mattered even if you want them to.

No they wont because players a grade older but playing down a grade are unrecruitable.

I can get behind to an extent of what you’re saying for showcases and clubs will want kids aligned by grade as much as possible and make recommendations but for league play they will want to win and compete at the highest level possible. Theres no way clubs would turn down a better player because a player won’t be recruitable?

And there's no way college coaches would totally ignore a kid playing in the correct age group but different grade, especially if that's the best team they could get on to get seen. Not all clubs/markets/leagues are equal.

100% a senior playing U17 because that’s there age group won’t be told sorry you’re really looking good out there but I wanted to watch you at U19 showcase that all committed players are skipping anyways.
And guess what if that is an issue they can just goto the U19 showcase next time. Why? Because they have the ability to play age group or up.

College coaches dont care about age. All they care about is when players will graduate. It nobody wants a player graduating in year X but is playing down at the Y level. Unrecruitable

Very recruitable if that player is like scoring all the goals or making all the saves.

First question EVERY college coach would ask themself is why is this player playing down a grade. Second question theyd ask themself is how does a player playing diwn a grade compare to other players playing the correct grade level that they could also recruit.

Both questions have no answer. Instead of worrying about it they'll just move on to the next player.

Because these kids will go to the showcases OR other events in their correct grade. Problem solved.

So now you're argueing that they'll play up with their grade at showcases? Aren't you also arguing for older players to play down at GY showcases?

So much hypocrisy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:highlight clips don't show the grades of any players.

Graduating year is listed on every ECNL player profile. Cillege coaches will see one player playing down on a team of players graduating a year after them.

And then... Unrecruitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Because we're talking about extreme edge cases now and not 4-5 months of kids every year. Trapped messes up plenty of kids who never want to play in college, but lose a season in 8th. You miss all these kids playing in the wrong cohort when they first start out. The last 10-20 pages of debate actually effect such a small # of the soccer playing population (but they're VERY LOUD)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Dont understand the logic in your comment? Really isnt a prefect solution. I dont see how a kid is not recruitable, what I think we should all realize that not all kids are recruitable.

Theres a limited number of college roster spots. Top teams can choose from 100s maybe 1000s of potential players. Nobody is going prioritize the player playing down a grade. Maybe some division 3 college will take them but whats the difference you could donate your kids way into expensive private schools and get the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Because we're talking about extreme edge cases now and not 4-5 months of kids every year. Trapped messes up plenty of kids who never want to play in college, but lose a season in 8th. You miss all these kids playing in the wrong cohort when they first start out. The last 10-20 pages of debate actually effect such a small # of the soccer playing population (but they're VERY LOUD)

Theres a reason people are being loud. SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that 13th 14th 15th etc month younger players must play with their grade completely obliterates any chances of leagues ever implementing GY like HS and allowing older players to play down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

One person complaining about August kids going to school on time and not being held back isn't soccer's problem, it is a personal problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

One person complaining about August kids going to school on time and not being held back isn't soccer's problem, it is a personal problem.

Its obviously more than one person posting.

But, its also obvious that its just you pushing against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:highlight clips don't show the grades of any players.

Graduating year is listed on every ECNL player profile. Cillege coaches will see one player playing down on a team of players graduating a year after them.

And then... Unrecruitable

False because Sept to Dec players are recruitable under BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Dont understand the logic in your comment? Really isnt a prefect solution. I dont see how a kid is not recruitable, what I think we should all realize that not all kids are recruitable.

Theres a limited number of college roster spots. Top teams can choose from 100s maybe 1000s of potential players. Nobody is going prioritize the player playing down a grade. Maybe some division 3 college will take them but whats the difference you could donate your kids way into expensive private schools and get the same thing.

So if you kid is playing up but is a trap player, and kid is good, wouldn't they keep in mind for following recruiting year? I'm just trying grasp what all of this is about. The more I read, the less I am understanding the arguments on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

Because we're talking about extreme edge cases now and not 4-5 months of kids every year. Trapped messes up plenty of kids who never want to play in college, but lose a season in 8th. You miss all these kids playing in the wrong cohort when they first start out. The last 10-20 pages of debate actually effect such a small # of the soccer playing population (but they're VERY LOUD)

Theres a reason people are being loud. SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that 13th 14th 15th etc month younger players must play with their grade completely obliterates any chances of leagues ever implementing GY like HS and allowing older players to play down.

You are the only person being loud to create a hybrid GY for your girl to have an advantage. You flooding the zone isn't a consensus, it is noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's almost as if switching to "school year" didn't solve all the problems. DCUM seems to want to shame August and September kids (and possibly those born in Q4) into playing up with their grade, depending on the school cut-off for their district.

Being "unrecruitable" seems to be worse then being a "trapped player", so tell me why this is a good change.

One person complaining about August kids going to school on time and not being held back isn't soccer's problem, it is a personal problem.

Its obviously more than one person posting.

But, its also obvious that its just you pushing against it.

You are the same person who came up with the SY+60 garbage. You are and have been on an island by yourself.