ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

I think its funny that everyone imagines club owners like scrooge McDuck, swimming through all their gold they received from running a soccer league. Who is getting rich on club soccer?? Leagues in SoCal go out of business every year and the ones that are alive can hardly stay afloat. Most can't afford access to good fields. The Blues, arguably a top 5 club in the country went belly up and needed to be saved financially. Get it out of your head that fat cats are running soccer and trying to line their pockets with club dues. Its silly and detracts from the hard decisions everyone needs to make in a youth sport rooted in capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

How will one of these kids handle the recruiting process when their teammates are one grade behind them? They have an athletic advantage because they are the oldest on their team, but will recruiters even see them when they’re playing with kids who are a full grade behind the grade the recruiters typically focus on? And will their success on the field be heavily discounted by recruiters because they’re playing against kids a grade below?

Just use some simple math and logic here. This keeps coming up now that BY parents are panicking. These kids ARE NOT trapped, they are just in a strange situation with options and there will be a very small number of them. In the case where school cutoff is 9/1. Your DD birthday is in August and ECNL decides 8/1 is the cutoff. She'll be in 10th grade and all her club teammates are in 9th grade. Only 1% of all players go to college, but lets say that is her aspiration and she thinks she is good enough. The answer is simple, she needs to be in the top 1%, not of her club team but of her graduating year. So play up and find out. There is no disadvatage here AT ALL. She is in 10th grade. She is getting recruited with 10th graders. Club soccer didn't determine her grade. So play with 10th graders. Im not sure why this is so complicated.

My DD is currently trapped. And yes, trapped. No options. She is forced to play above her grade. When she is in 10th grade her teamates will be 11th graders. No option to play with 10th graders and to develop and be recruited with her class. Its really strange, its screws with her development over the years and there are TONS of kids locked into this dumb situation. You can't make it perfect for everyone in a large country that has school dates starting randomly and where we're tied to the NCAA system as the most likely path post HS. Everyone is looking to USYS to fix it all. How? Just do what is best for the majority of kids and move on. This isn't that hard.

I’m just asking a question about how this small group of kids will navigate the new (or return to the old) age brackets for youth soccer, not advocating against the pending change (which I agree is best for the most people). Your response is that they need to play up, which is an option if they’re good enough to play with kids who might be as much as 14 months older than them. If they hope to play top 20 D-1 then they’d better be that good. But what if they just want to play at [William & Mary] or [Washington & Lee]? Is there a path to play with their new younger team and still get recruited despite being out of synch with their school class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick note from a parent of a trapped player (Q4). She is best technical player on her team (top 100 nationally) and one of the most valuable in terms of wins and losses, but she is small. I want the status quo as the other two options are not as good. She can either A) stay on the current team but now there will be even bigger/older girls by an additional 5 months so she could be playing with girls 14/15 months. older or B) drop down and totally outclass her correct grade. Both options worse in my eyes.

Also, I dont think trapped, for recruiting purposes, is a big deal at all. Your club should be advocating for you, you should be advocating for you, you should be attending ID camps, etc. If you use trapped as a recruiting excuse it means you aren't trying hard enough. Period.

Your story is what some pro SY people don't understand and why they should slowly phase this in starting with the younger age groups. With what's been shared and a possible rollout now in fall 26, hopefully that will happen OR at least the inclusion of flexible rules where people can more easily stay with their current teams. With such a big change, they should try to minimize disruption which also then minimizes harm.

You can stay in the team if you pass the tryout. No club will be tough on a star player. Melanie played two years up in Surf.

Of course not. But there's already been talk in forums about supposed "rules" informal or otherwise of no playing up that'll affect the vast majority of players.

Absolutely not true.

Any player can play up if their patents want them to.

The catch is that if your kid chooses to play up they need to be better than players that are that age.

My kid is a late Sept trapped birthday birthday on her team but there's also an early Jan (a year down) player that's playing up essentially 2 grades. She's the daughter of a pro sports parent and has freaky natural talent. Both my kid and the pro sport parent kid start so everything works out.

Before the pearl clutchers start. I'm not worried about recruitment at all. This is a top 50 nationally team + recruiters are already sniffing around. At both my kid and the pro sports kid.

Just to add a little more...

The people that complain about trapped players and BY wont stop complaining if leagues change to SY. They'll just change what they complain about.

At the highest levels nobody cares what age players are. They either produce on the field or they don't.

Unfortunately there's more ulittle players/parents than there are high level competitive players. They think that they're doing the right thing what they don't understand is that it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

OK what states have a cutoff earlier than 9/1. Not when school starts, what the date a child must be 5 to start kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

The obvious solution is to mandate the same school cutoff date nationwide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

No wrong.

They could make the cutoff 7/1.

Thev"issue" if you want to call it that is if a school started Sept 1 players born between July 1 and Sept 1 could play down a grade. Most people in this situation would choose to play up (which is complely allowed) with their grade in school for recruiting by the time they hit u14.

The difference here is that yes there will be some parents that choose to let their kid play down for wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

OK what states have a cutoff earlier than 9/1. Not when school starts, what the date a child must be 5 to start kindergarten.

I’m gonna guess CA . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

OK what states have a cutoff earlier than 9/1. Not when school starts, what the date a child must be 5 to start kindergarten.

I’m gonna guess CA . . .

A quick Google search california is 9/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

No wrong.

They could make the cutoff 7/1.

Thev"issue" if you want to call it that is if a school started Sept 1 players born between July 1 and Sept 1 could play down a grade. Most people in this situation would choose to play up (which is complely allowed) with their grade in school for recruiting by the time they hit u14.

The difference here is that yes there will be some parents that choose to let their kid play down for wins.

Wouldn’t playing down for wins be counterproductive if your goal is to keep playing in college, even D-3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick note from a parent of a trapped player (Q4). She is best technical player on her team (top 100 nationally) and one of the most valuable in terms of wins and losses, but she is small. I want the status quo as the other two options are not as good. She can either A) stay on the current team but now there will be even bigger/older girls by an additional 5 months so she could be playing with girls 14/15 months. older or B) drop down and totally outclass her correct grade. Both options worse in my eyes.

Also, I dont think trapped, for recruiting purposes, is a big deal at all. Your club should be advocating for you, you should be advocating for you, you should be attending ID camps, etc. If you use trapped as a recruiting excuse it means you aren't trying hard enough. Period.

Your story is what some pro SY people don't understand and why they should slowly phase this in starting with the younger age groups. With what's been shared and a possible rollout now in fall 26, hopefully that will happen OR at least the inclusion of flexible rules where people can more easily stay with their current teams. With such a big change, they should try to minimize disruption which also then minimizes harm.

You can stay in the team if you pass the tryout. No club will be tough on a star player. Melanie played two years up in Surf.

Of course not. But there's already been talk in forums about supposed "rules" informal or otherwise of no playing up that'll affect the vast majority of players.

Absolutely not true.

Any player can play up if their patents want them to.

The catch is that if your kid chooses to play up they need to be better than players that are that age.

My kid is a late Sept trapped birthday birthday on her team but there's also an early Jan (a year down) player that's playing up essentially 2 grades. She's the daughter of a pro sports parent and has freaky natural talent. Both my kid and the pro sport parent kid start so everything works out.

Before the pearl clutchers start. I'm not worried about recruitment at all. This is a top 50 nationally team + recruiters are already sniffing around. At both my kid and the pro sports kid.

Just to add a little more...

The people that complain about trapped players and BY wont stop complaining if leagues change to SY. They'll just change what they complain about.

At the highest levels nobody cares what age players are. They either produce on the field or they don't.

Unfortunately there's more ulittle players/parents than there are high level competitive players. They think that they're doing the right thing what they don't understand is that it doesn't matter.

Your sound bite doesn't match reality. The pitch to pro podcast made it clear that USSF changed to calendar year specifically so they would get older kids on the highest level, youth national teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

Uhh, what? Lol.

“Starting in the fall of 2026, members and leagues will have reasonable flexibility to choose the best registration option for their participants.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our director is talking about forming SY teams and having them play up since 25/26 is now a wash. So the 2012 age group is now Aug 1 2012 to July 31 2013. 2013 is now Aug 1 2013 to July 31 2014

Where do Q3 kids who started school early go under the new approach? For example, October 2013 birthday currently playing U12 and already in 6th grade? The above cutoffs would move them down a soccer year, but that would have them playing with kids a grade below them. Maybe an advantage playing against younger kids, but they’re already used to playing with older kids and moving down would mess up their recruiting cycle.

I don’t feel bad for kids who started school early or late. It’s a problem of your own making.

Again, many of the kids in these situations are in states that have a 9/1 or later deadline for school enrollment. For example, August birthday's in a state with a September 1 deadline started school exactly on time. They didn't start early.

Right so 9/1 or a 9/30 date makes more sense than 8/1.

No, anything other than 8-1 creates too many trapped kids. Possible to play up, not possible to play down. Been pointed out to you over and over, pay attention.

OK what states have a cutoff earlier than 9/1. Not when school starts, what the date a child must be 5 to start kindergarten.

They link is on about page 253 or maybe it was 287 or you can Google it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a quick note from a parent of a trapped player (Q4). She is best technical player on her team (top 100 nationally) and one of the most valuable in terms of wins and losses, but she is small. I want the status quo as the other two options are not as good. She can either A) stay on the current team but now there will be even bigger/older girls by an additional 5 months so she could be playing with girls 14/15 months. older or B) drop down and totally outclass her correct grade. Both options worse in my eyes.

Also, I dont think trapped, for recruiting purposes, is a big deal at all. Your club should be advocating for you, you should be advocating for you, you should be attending ID camps, etc. If you use trapped as a recruiting excuse it means you aren't trying hard enough. Period.

Your story is what some pro SY people don't understand and why they should slowly phase this in starting with the younger age groups. With what's been shared and a possible rollout now in fall 26, hopefully that will happen OR at least the inclusion of flexible rules where people can more easily stay with their current teams. With such a big change, they should try to minimize disruption which also then minimizes harm.

You can stay in the team if you pass the tryout. No club will be tough on a star player. Melanie played two years up in Surf.

Of course not. But there's already been talk in forums about supposed "rules" informal or otherwise of no playing up that'll affect the vast majority of players.

Absolutely not true.

Any player can play up if their patents want them to.

The catch is that if your kid chooses to play up they need to be better than players that are that age.

My kid is a late Sept trapped birthday birthday on her team but there's also an early Jan (a year down) player that's playing up essentially 2 grades. She's the daughter of a pro sports parent and has freaky natural talent. Both my kid and the pro sport parent kid start so everything works out.

Before the pearl clutchers start. I'm not worried about recruitment at all. This is a top 50 nationally team + recruiters are already sniffing around. At both my kid and the pro sports kid.

Just to add a little more...

The people that complain about trapped players and BY wont stop complaining if leagues change to SY. They'll just change what they complain about.

At the highest levels nobody cares what age players are. They either produce on the field or they don't.

Unfortunately there's more ulittle players/parents than there are high level competitive players. They think that they're doing the right thing what they don't understand is that it doesn't matter.

Doesn’t this mean SY is the obvious solution? If low level players want SY, and it doesn’t matter to high level players, that leaves no one wanting BY.