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: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.

There has to be some kind of nuance implemeted or there will be continuous issues related to SY.

Back in 2016 before switching from SY to BY parents werent looking for ways to play their kid down on a younger team. Now for HS sports if you're playing at the highest level playing down a year or two is manditory. Something has changed. Parents used to want their kid playing up. Now they're fighting to have them play down. Because of this leagues cant leave eligibility rules open to interpretation anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There has to be some kind of nuance implemeted or there will be continuous issues related to SY.

Back in 2016 before switching from SY to BY parents werent looking for ways to play their kid down on a younger team. Now for HS sports if you're playing at the highest level playing down a year or two is manditory. Something has changed. Parents used to want their kid playing up. Now they're fighting to have them play down. Because of this leagues cant leave eligibility rules open to interpretation anymore.

August to July has one interpretation. Nuance would be a cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There has to be some kind of nuance implemeted or there will be continuous issues related to SY.

Back in 2016 before switching from SY to BY parents werent looking for ways to play their kid down on a younger team. Now for HS sports if you're playing at the highest level playing down a year or two is manditory. Something has changed. Parents used to want their kid playing up. Now they're fighting to have them play down. Because of this leagues cant leave eligibility rules open to interpretation anymore.

In club soccer, they pay to let their kids play down in order to stay in the top team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There has to be some kind of nuance implemeted or there will be continuous issues related to SY.

Back in 2016 before switching from SY to BY parents werent looking for ways to play their kid down on a younger team. Now for HS sports if you're playing at the highest level playing down a year or two is manditory. Something has changed. Parents used to want their kid playing up. Now they're fighting to have them play down. Because of this leagues cant leave eligibility rules open to interpretation anymore.

In club soccer, they pay to let their kids play down in order to stay in the top team.

With fake birth certificates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There has to be some kind of nuance implemeted or there will be continuous issues related to SY.

Back in 2016 before switching from SY to BY parents werent looking for ways to play their kid down on a younger team. Now for HS sports if you're playing at the highest level playing down a year or two is manditory. Something has changed. Parents used to want their kid playing up. Now they're fighting to have them play down. Because of this leagues cant leave eligibility rules open to interpretation anymore.

In club soccer, they pay to let their kids play down in order to stay in the top team.

Or other parents are paying to have their kid who is the correct grade in school showcased on the correct graduating year team. If you cant see how this will become an issue you're blind. There will be 18 paying customers that dont want grade older players on their team and 1 maybe 2 Aug-Nov one grade older looking to play down. Just play on the B team of your grade on school if you dont make the A team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They always ignore the facts. When this gets brought up. Under BY you have separate grade kids playing together and being recruited together. Now all
Of the sudden the BY people have a problem with August kids being in the wrong 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.

So college coaches want grad year? Hmm… I wonder who ECNL target audience is?…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They always ignore the facts. When this gets brought up. Under BY you have separate grade kids playing together and being recruited together. Now all
Of the sudden the BY people have a problem with August kids being in the wrong grade?

Incorrect. A big part of the rational for switching from BY to SY was to have less trapped players. Then suddenly the SY people changed to grade doesnt matter. The ruthlessness is that it does.

[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.

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.

Good redirect - I'll answer after you.

[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.

So college coaches want grad year? Hmm… I wonder who ECNL target audience is?…

Exactly which is why people are pushing for SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule not letting Aug-Nov players play down a grade. All players on the field will be the same grade in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They always ignore the facts. When this gets brought up. Under BY you have separate grade kids playing together and being recruited together. Now all
Of the sudden the BY people have a problem with August kids being in the wrong grade?

Incorrect. A big part of the rational for switching from BY to SY was to have less trapped players. Then suddenly the SY people changed to grade doesnt matter. The ruthlessness is that it does.

It will have less trapped players. It will work like it did before. No issue.

[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.

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.

So college coaches want grad year? Hmm… I wonder who ECNL target audience is?…

Exactly which is why people are pushing for SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule not letting Aug-Nov players play down a grade. All players on the field will be the same grade in school.

Nobody other than one cra-cra that hates August kids want GY. SY will work better than BY even if one sourpuss can't stop crying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Choice 1 unless club decides they should play up based on talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Play on the u12 B team if they cant make the u12 A team.

[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.

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.

So college coaches want grad year? Hmm… I wonder who ECNL target audience is?…

Exactly which is why people are pushing for SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule not letting Aug-Nov players play down a grade. All players on the field will be the same grade in school.

Lol no one but you is pushing for grade alignment for Aug kids but you. Literally everyone else is fine with 12 month cut off with the option to play up.