ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love for it to take effect this spring for Aug-December 2010 and below. It would be great to not waste time and to see how teams shape up with this change immediately.

Wouldn't they need to do try outs with the new age groups since some years have more/less talent and kids might be knocked down/up a team or two?

We are ecnl in another state but they have not mentioned mid-year winter try outs.

This wouldn't change until Fall 25 so clubs have time to plan for it. No mid-year tryouts.

Thanks! In that case, this is a nonissue for us. They often winter train across years so the kids know each other. Every year kids switch clubs so there's often new faces anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap.

Players who need to play down after the 9/1 cut-off are currently trapped as well.

I believe ECNL will give those players waiver to be able to play down in their grade during ECNL showcase.

1. After setting the cut off to be 9/1, only a very small number of players born before 9/1, but choose to go to school late will be impacted. Those players are currently trapped as well. ECNL can give them waivers to play down in the showcase.

2. For another very small number of players after 9/1, but choose to go to school early, play up is the option if they want to stay in their grade and can play as the youngest in the older group.

No new solution can be perfect to everyone. But set to 9/1 will significantly reduce the # of current trapped players.

They discussed going back to Aug, not a new date. So they are voting on reverting back to Aug 1-July 31.

See https://www.usyouthsoccer.org/news/2024/10/23/us-youth-soccer-us-club-soccer-ayso-statement-on-forthcoming-u-s-soccer-decision-on-calendar-year-vs-birth-year-registration/.

Posters wanting 9-1 and arguing for is irrelevant. This is still US Soccer.

Sorry but there is nothing in the public announcement that suggests they are simply going to vote to "repeal" the birth year decision and revert back to the previous system. It also doesn't state that if they do vote for a return to school year based age groups that either the school year dates nor when this change would be implemented will be decided at this particular meeting. That could all be determined down the road. Unless you have the agenda (not yet published on the website), you are also engaging in pure speculation.

They are reviewing the decision that took them from 8-1 to 1-1. Speculation would be saying 9-1 is 70% going to happen. To suggest 9-1 is anything but a speculation would be a farce.

Again, incorrect. The US Soccer statement declares that they are "reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels, and comparing the practical results to the communicated goals and outcomes.". You are simply seeing words that aren't written and fomenting statements in your mind that don't exist in real life. Stop reading between the lines and telling us your "opinion" on what is being discussed." You only have a few more days and you will find out the facts.

[Anonymous]

Will the meeting be able to be live-streamed by the public? When can we expect an announcement? Or a leak 👀?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap.

Players who need to play down after the 9/1 cut-off are currently trapped as well.

I believe ECNL will give those players waiver to be able to play down in their grade during ECNL showcase.

1. After setting the cut off to be 9/1, only a very small number of players born before 9/1, but choose to go to school late will be impacted. Those players are currently trapped as well. ECNL can give them waivers to play down in the showcase.

2. For another very small number of players after 9/1, but choose to go to school early, play up is the option if they want to stay in their grade and can play as the youngest in the older group.

No new solution can be perfect to everyone. But set to 9/1 will significantly reduce the # of current trapped players.

They discussed going back to Aug, not a new date. So they are voting on reverting back to Aug 1-July 31.

See https://www.usyouthsoccer.org/news/2024/10/23/us-youth-soccer-us-club-soccer-ayso-statement-on-forthcoming-u-s-soccer-decision-on-calendar-year-vs-birth-year-registration/.

Posters wanting 9-1 and arguing for is irrelevant. This is still US Soccer.

Sorry but there is nothing in the public announcement that suggests they are simply going to vote to "repeal" the birth year decision and revert back to the previous system. It also doesn't state that if they do vote for a return to school year based age groups that either the school year dates nor when this change would be implemented will be decided at this particular meeting. That could all be determined down the road. Unless you have the agenda (not yet published on the website), you are also engaging in pure speculation.

They are reviewing the decision that took them from 8-1 to 1-1. Speculation would be saying 9-1 is 70% going to happen. To suggest 9-1 is anything but a speculation would be a farce.

Again, incorrect. The US Soccer statement declares that they are "reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels, and comparing the practical results to the communicated goals and outcomes.". You are simply seeing words that aren't written and fomenting statements in your mind that don't exist in real life. Stop reading between the lines and telling us your "opinion" on what is being discussed." You only have a few more days and you will find out the facts.

Seriously, how are you missing this?

"In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change the age eligibility for team rosters from August 1-July 31 to January 1-December 31."

"Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the urgence of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision."

Just 2 more days of this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

The USSF survey to clubs indicated that they are looking at 8/1 and 9/1. Not sure what they will settle on but many large states have 9/1 as their school year cut-off date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will the meeting be able to be live-streamed by the public? When can we expect an announcement? Or a leak 👀?

I feel like I saw somewhere that it's a closed meeting, but if it's open it should be here:
https://www.youtube.com/@ussoccer/streams

If the vote is that day, I'd assume that materials to influence the vote have been circulating already. Maybe they will be in the stream. Someone said a couple times that they have participation data showing the lower participation rate particularly among the Q4 kids after the change. That would be interesting to see, as many on these threads refuse to believe that this could be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The USSF survey to clubs indicated that they are looking at 8/1 and 9/1. Not sure what they will settle on but many large states have 9/1 as their school year cut-off date.

Many, but not all. There was a reason it was 8/1 before. The US is a big country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USSF survey to clubs indicated that they are looking at 8/1 and 9/1. Not sure what they will settle on but many large states have 9/1 as their school year cut-off date.

Many, but not all. There was a reason it was 8/1 before. The US is a big country.

This this this. To make the change worthwhile you have to encompass the states with the early school cutoff dates. If you’re state uses 9/1 as the cutoff then any August kids can just play up to match their grade

[Anonymous]

Playing up is easier than playing down and may only be nessisary for kids in the recruiting ages where coaches actully want to see them vs their peer group. Thats why 9/1 makes sense.

[Anonymous]

This has a good breakdown of each cutoff :

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab1_3-2020.asp

[Anonymous]

Making the judgement that being older is an advantage, going to 9-1, helps 4 months and hurts 8 months of kids. And going to 8-1, helps 5 months and hurts 7 months. Seems you would get more buy in with 8-1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USSF survey to clubs indicated that they are looking at 8/1 and 9/1. Not sure what they will settle on but many large states have 9/1 as their school year cut-off date.

Many, but not all. There was a reason it was 8/1 before. The US is a big country.

I'd go with:
9/1 with exceptions for 8/1-8/31 to play down with grade,
OR
8/1 with a rule that 8/1-8/31 should play up with grade.

If the goal is alignment with school grade, and some common sense guard rails for kids much too old/young for their group, either of these handles it. If an August kid redshirts in an area with a 9/1 cutoff, so be it. Welcome to the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Playing up is easier than playing down and may only be nessisary for kids in the recruiting ages where coaches actully want to see them vs their peer group. Thats why 9/1 makes sense.

Easier for who? The kids or clubs? What if playing up isn’t allowed? And then who decides what the cutoff for that is going to be? What if there are no spots to play up because that team is maxed? I love how people’s response to this is just “oh, play up! It’s easy!” Doesn’t work that way.

[Anonymous]

Easier for the competittive balaence of the game.

The kids in this catagory would be the youngest anyway so its almost like a bio band with an opt out for kids looking for college scholorship chances and a need to play with their grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing up is easier than playing down and may only be nessisary for kids in the recruiting ages where coaches actully want to see them vs their peer group. Thats why 9/1 makes sense.

Easier for who? The kids or clubs? What if playing up isn’t allowed? And then who decides what the cutoff for that is going to be? What if there are no spots to play up because that team is maxed? I love how people’s response to this is just “oh, play up! It’s easy!” Doesn’t work that way.

If she/he cannot play up in her/his own grade, the chance to get recruited is slim.