ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Though MLSN is the only league that allows playing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Yes, a college recruiter only cares about what year players will GRADUATE. They will group all players from that graduating year into a group and pick the best ones. If your kid is playing down theres no way to quantify how good they are compared to all the rest of the players graduating that year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Yes, a college recruiter only cares about what year players will GRADUATE. They will group all players from that graduating year into a group and pick the best ones. If your kid is playing down theres no way to quantify how good they are compared to all the rest of the players graduating that year.

And yet, Sept to Dec kids get recruited now.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at an edge case example and discuss. Assume ECNL clubs.

State A has an August 1 kindergarten start cutoff

State B has a December 31 kindergarten start cutoff.

What should a girl with a December 30th 2015 birth date do in State B?
1- play u11 next season, within the 12 month window, would be playing with a mix of 6th (Aug-dec 2015) and 5th(Jan-July 2016) graders.
2- be forced to play up u12 next season where she may have to play against kids in State A who could be born August 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Yes, a college recruiter only cares about what year players will GRADUATE. They will group all players from that graduating year into a group and pick the best ones. If your kid is playing down theres no way to quantify how good they are compared to all the rest of the players graduating that year.

What college do you recruit for - you seem to have a lot of made up knowledge on the recruiting process. How many have you personally been through? This is a wild take and not worth responding to again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

This might be the dumbest thing i've read on this forum in a while. There is not 13th, 14th or 15th month birthday player playing in an 8-1 to 7-31 season. It's 12-months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

This might be the dumbest thing i've read on this forum in a while. There is not 13th, 14th or 15th month birthday player playing in an 8-1 to 7-31 season. It's 12-months.

People are speculating that there will be a nuance that says something like, if you fall within a seasonal year that does not align you with your grade, then you can adjust to align. Obviously this makes little sense because it would have just been school year, but this is the latest speculation on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Yes, a college recruiter only cares about what year players will GRADUATE. They will group all players from that graduating year into a group and pick the best ones. If your kid is playing down theres no way to quantify how good they are compared to all the rest of the players graduating that year.

What college do you recruit for - you seem to have a lot of made up knowledge on the recruiting process. How many have you personally been through? This is a wild take and not worth responding to again.

Why dont you start by telling everyone which littles team your kid plays on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

This might be the dumbest thing i've read on this forum in a while. There is not 13th, 14th or 15th month birthday player playing in an 8-1 to 7-31 season. It's 12-months.

How are you this dumb?

A 13th 14th 15th month player would be a year+ younger than 8/1 but still in ths same grade. Different schools have different start dates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

Much ado about nothing. Going to SY helps trapped and participation. Will need to give the new SY a couple of years to see if real problems develop. Then they can be addressed. If they could take 2 years to formulate and implement SY, they can wait 2 years to see what other problems that should be addressed without creating more problems with the solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

This might be the dumbest thing i've read on this forum in a while. There is not 13th, 14th or 15th month birthday player playing in an 8-1 to 7-31 season. It's 12-months.

People are speculating that there will be a nuance that says something like, if you fall within a seasonal year that does not align you with your grade, then you can adjust to align. Obviously this makes little sense because it would have just been school year, but this is the latest speculation on this thread.

No nuance. You can play on age or up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Players playing up are generally favored over players their same age.

Players playing down are generally looked down on compared to players their same age.

Its this simple.

Players playing down would be playing with correct age group so how would they be looked down upon? Trapped players have no choice, but at the same time they will be earning that right to play up moving forward.

Think of it this way, SY 8/1-7/31 is a 12 month eligibility window. However because of when schools start there might be players that are a certain grade but born in the 13th month (Aug the next year) or so on. Under SY rules as they've been relayed right now 13th 14th 15th month younger players can play on what would normally be considered a grade below them team. Or, they could choose to play up on a team with their grade is school because players are always eligible to play up. The problem with playing down a grade is when you get older college recruiters will ignore you unless you play up a grade or your parents hold you back in school.

Instead of creating issues that shouldn't exist just implement a rule that 13th 14th 15th month birthday players must play on a team thats predominately their grade. This keeps everyone on the correct grade in school team. If the parents hated this they can hold their kid back in school and then 13th 14th 15th month birthdays are in the correct graduating year team and school grade.

This might be the dumbest thing i've read on this forum in a while. There is not 13th, 14th or 15th month birthday player playing in an 8-1 to 7-31 season. It's 12-months.

How are you this dumb?

A 13th 14th 15th month player would be a year+ younger than 8/1 but still in ths same grade. Different schools have different start dates.

PP is right, there are only 12 months in an age group. Interjecting irrelevant things like grade is off target.