ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It’s comical. “Coaches and DOC will decide” and then he proceeds to create rules he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

This is exactly what GY people say to try and get others to buy into it. Then once implemented reality hits with 16 year old freshman playing against 14 year olds. The "misaligned" players people used as an example get mowed down and never play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

This is exactly what GY people say to try and get others to buy into it. Then once implemented reality hits with 16 year old freshman playing against 14 year olds. The "misaligned" players people used as an example get mowed down and never play.

You don't have to worry about GY if you simply enforce the 12-month age group. As others have stated, you actually create more of a culture of GY when YOU advocate for "force-ups" for and by shaming anyone who wants to play in their 12-month age group. So, if you're against GY like the example above you have a funny way of showing it!

[Anonymous]

Yep, by mandating "grade" that's one step away from a 16-year-old homeschooler who then starts arguing that they need to be on their 9th grade team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

The community has heard your opinion stated on a personal issue numerous times, voiced it's disagreement and is moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

This is exactly what GY people say to try and get others to buy into it. Then once implemented reality hits with 16 year old freshman playing against 14 year olds. The "misaligned" players people used as an example get mowed down and never play.

You don't have to worry about GY if you simply enforce the 12-month age group. As others have stated, you actually create more of a culture of GY when YOU advocate for "force-ups" for and by shaming anyone who wants to play in their 12-month age group. So, if you're against GY like the example above you have a funny way of showing it!

SY 8/1-7/31 has a defined oldest player per grade date. This cant change. Older players can't play down.

Add in a rule that players younger than 8/1-7/31 must play with the team thats their grade and you're just aligning everyone to the correct grade.

What this does is completely disarm any arguements for GY because players are always a specific grade during games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

The community has heard your opinion stated on a personal issue numerous times, voiced it's disagreement and is moving on.

People are tired of hearing your fiction about what will happen in the future. You have no idea what will happen and are a parent that thinks they know everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, by mandating "grade" that's one step away from a 16-year-old homeschooler who then starts arguing that they need to be on their 9th grade team.

If its SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play with their grade please explain how a homeschooler will manipulate grade in school to play down on a lower team. Its not possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, by mandating "grade" that's one step away from a 16-year-old homeschooler who then starts arguing that they need to be on their 9th grade team.

If its SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play with their grade please explain how a homeschooler will manipulate grade in school to play down on a lower team. Its not possible.

Because by mandating grade, you are creating age groups that aren't 12-month, they become as big as 15 month, because it's not just August that have kids who are misaligned. With larger pools and a culture of grade over season, people will start advocating for just grade, because it's simpler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

This is exactly what GY people say to try and get others to buy into it. Then once implemented reality hits with 16 year old freshman playing against 14 year olds. The "misaligned" players people used as an example get mowed down and never play.

You don't have to worry about GY if you simply enforce the 12-month age group. As others have stated, you actually create more of a culture of GY when YOU advocate for "force-ups" for and by shaming anyone who wants to play in their 12-month age group. So, if you're against GY like the example above you have a funny way of showing it!

SY 8/1-7/31 has a defined oldest player per grade date. This cant change. Older players can't play down.

Add in a rule that players younger than 8/1-7/31 must play with the team thats their grade and you're just aligning everyone to the correct grade.

What this does is completely disarm any arguements for GY because players are always a specific grade during games.

The community has heard your opinion stated on a personal issue numerous times, voiced it's disagreement and is moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, by mandating "grade" that's one step away from a 16-year-old homeschooler who then starts arguing that they need to be on their 9th grade team.

If its SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play with their grade please explain how a homeschooler will manipulate grade in school to play down on a lower team. Its not possible.

Because by mandating grade, you are creating age groups that aren't 12-month, they become as big as 15 month, because it's not just August that have kids who are misaligned. With larger pools and a culture of grade over season, people will start advocating for just grade, because it's simpler.

No they wont because nobody wants older players playing down.

Also dont bring the BS about not wanting groupings to be about grade when 90% of the reasoning for changing from BY to SY was because of grade in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how his critics make excellent points and then he pivots to something slightly different -- GY. Doubly funny is there's hardly been a pro-GY person in either thread!

All most people want here is to stick to the 12-month age group and leave playing up based on ability.

Instead, we get someone trying to label something within the rules as playing down. Not needed.

What you're not hearing is that parents wont decide which teams clubs choose to roster players coaches and docs will.

Not allowing players to play down and rostering aug and younger players on the B team with players their grade in school makes things easier for the club and is better for the player.

It is NOT better for the player. It makes them the 13th/14th/15th younger than the oldest kids on the team. The unicorn player that would play up anyway is the only one who benefits.

Thats why you play on the B team with players your grade. They have less ability which evens out being younger.

Or you hold your kid back in school so theyre the correct grade and everything works out. Just because you started your kid early in school doesnt mean everyone else needs to accept or accomodate your choices.

That's where you go off the rails. People who are misaligned are those who actually went on time, not early. Also, decisions about school have more to do about maturity and intellect than the capacity to play sports -- a huge reason why they shouldn't be a factor.

This is exactly what GY people say to try and get others to buy into it. Then once implemented reality hits with 16 year old freshman playing against 14 year olds. The "misaligned" players people used as an example get mowed down and never play.

You don't have to worry about GY if you simply enforce the 12-month age group. As others have stated, you actually create more of a culture of GY when YOU advocate for "force-ups" for and by shaming anyone who wants to play in their 12-month age group. So, if you're against GY like the example above you have a funny way of showing it!

SY 8/1-7/31 has a defined oldest player per grade date. This cant change. Older players can't play down.

Add in a rule that players younger than 8/1-7/31 must play with the team thats their grade and you're just aligning everyone to the correct grade.

What this does is completely disarm any arguements for GY because players are always a specific grade during games.

The community has heard your opinion stated on a personal issue numerous times, voiced it's disagreement and is moving on.

There is no community just you