ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its cute to watch BY hopefuls continue to hold out hope that teams won't change. 'the better teams are fine, they are at the top already'. You really have no idea what's coming do you? WHOLESALE change.

We are in a VERY competitive area and the best teams in the nation are all here. And the best clubs want to stay that way. AT EVERY AGE GROUP.

The 2010-2012 teams (top in the nation) are already making moves. Their teams are made up of several Q3/Q4 kids. Use your imagination.... When one club drops their best 6 2011 players down to 2012 and takes that team from #30 to #1 in the country you're really so naive to think the other clubs are gonna shrug their shoulders and give up on their 2012 ranking?

If you believe that I have bridge in Brooklyn up for sale I'd love to discuss.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

RLs bumping up will be a rare sight. You just can’t make up the delta in dedication and match experience between RL and NL.

In theory there is supposed to be fluidity in the ECNL “pool” for clubs - but it isn’t fluid after u13 because the amount of time on ball is significantly different between RL and NL

[Anonymous]

I doubt there are any 6 Q3/Q4 players in a "top" ECNL teams.

My kid has been in 4 ECNL/MLSN teams.

Top 10 ECNL team: 2 Q3/Q4
Below average MLSN: 3 Q3/Q4
Top 50 ECNL: 1 Q3/Q4
Below average MLSN: 6 Q3/Q4 (But I think this is due to the trap year). It is very likely down to 2 Q3/Q4 next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its cute to watch BY hopefuls continue to hold out hope that teams won't change. 'the better teams are fine, they are at the top already'. You really have no idea what's coming do you? WHOLESALE change.

We are in a VERY competitive area and the best teams in the nation are all here. And the best clubs want to stay that way. AT EVERY AGE GROUP.

The 2010-2012 teams (top in the nation) are already making moves. Their teams are made up of several Q3/Q4 kids. Use your imagination.... When one club drops their best 6 2011 players down to 2012 and takes that team from #30 to #1 in the country you're really so naive to think the other clubs are gonna shrug their shoulders and give up on their 2012 ranking?

If you believe that I have bridge in Brooklyn up for sale I'd love to discuss.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

Depth is a real issue everywhere at all ages. Teams/clubs not at the top before all of this bring up players often from younger age groups to plug holes in an effort to compete and that also keeps younger talent happy. The registration change won't change that. All this will do is potentially improve some teams/clubs using older players for once, but after that happens initially, that well will run dry. It's also unfortunate people here think that is some sort of reckoning. Yes, it'll be an opportunity that some may take advantage of BUT it also will drive some probably away from the sport, not because they couldn't compete BUT because they're done with the all the BS of youth soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

😂 ECNL Hat lady? Is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

I have an October and a November child. I'm just trying to understand. On my one child's lower level young age travel team the vast majority are fall birthdays. I can understand why the August parents might be fighting for this but all of the August birthday's are in the older grade than my child. I get the argument you can play up to be with your classmates, but that's not reality for most. The argument for delaying a year was to adjust registration systems, most people are going to input their child's birthday and sign up, there will be zero consideration for school year. Just like when I first signed my daughter up for rec soccer the fall she was starting kindergarten and realized because of her birthday she would be with mostly first and second graders. (Small club U7/U8 combined). I get the flexibility because different states have different requirements for school but if you default to an earlier date than that aren't you just asking for more problems?

Summer kids are split half/ half here. Some parents want the free child care as early as possible. Some parents are bad at reading comprehension and don't understand the difference between minimum and maximum. That doesn't mean that kids that started kindergarten when they were older 5, just turned 6 are held back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its cute to watch BY hopefuls continue to hold out hope that teams won't change. 'the better teams are fine, they are at the top already'. You really have no idea what's coming do you? WHOLESALE change.

We are in a VERY competitive area and the best teams in the nation are all here. And the best clubs want to stay that way. AT EVERY AGE GROUP.

The 2010-2012 teams (top in the nation) are already making moves. Their teams are made up of several Q3/Q4 kids. Use your imagination.... When one club drops their best 6 2011 players down to 2012 and takes that team from #30 to #1 in the country you're really so naive to think the other clubs are gonna shrug their shoulders and give up on their 2012 ranking?

If you believe that I have bridge in Brooklyn up for sale I'd love to discuss.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

Depth is a real issue everywhere at all ages. Teams/clubs not at the top before all of this bring up players often from younger age groups to plug holes in an effort to compete and that also keeps younger talent happy. The registration change won't change that. All this will do is potentially improve some teams/clubs using older players for once, but after that happens initially, that well will run dry. It's also unfortunate people here think that is some sort of reckoning. Yes, it'll be an opportunity that some may take advantage of BUT it also will drive some probably away from the sport, not because they couldn't compete BUT because they're done with the all the BS of youth soccer.

100%

It’s another “experiment” dressed up as “giving options” to the leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

😂 ECNL Hat lady? Is that you?

Don't worry when things get tough they'll try to hold their kid back for wins.

Cheater + Repeater.

You'll see them again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

😂 ECNL Hat lady? Is that you?

Don't worry when things get tough they'll try to hold their kid back for wins.

Cheater + Repeater.

You'll see them again.

Who is they?

[Anonymous]

I guess Q3/Q4 has a higher percentage of GA D1 recruits than Q3/Q4 in ECNL D1 recruits.

After ECNL changes to SY to align the team for college recruiting, the Q3/Q4 percentage of ECNL D1 recruits will increase, and overall, ECNL D1 recruits will increase.

ECNL will be the big winner after the SY change. GA will be irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Q3/Q4 has a higher percentage of GA D1 recruits than Q3/Q4 in ECNL D1 recruits.

After ECNL changes to SY to align the team for college recruiting, the Q3/Q4 percentage of ECNL D1 recruits will increase, and overall, ECNL D1 recruits will increase.

ECNL will be the big winner after the SY change. GA will be irrelevant.

This is stupid logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess Q3/Q4 has a higher percentage of GA D1 recruits than Q3/Q4 in ECNL D1 recruits.

After ECNL changes to SY to align the team for college recruiting, the Q3/Q4 percentage of ECNL D1 recruits will increase, and overall, ECNL D1 recruits will increase.

ECNL will be the big winner after the SY change. GA will be irrelevant.

The age-cutoff / alignment with college recruiting logic is pretty poor. There was never a recruiting issue with BY cut-offs, or SY before.

I don’t think you’re right about GA having a heavier Q3/4 D1 placement. From raw statistics it would be hard to see that as true unless 2/3 of GA players were Q3/4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

😂 ECNL Hat lady? Is that you?

Don't worry when things get tough they'll try to hold their kid back for wins.

Cheater + Repeater.

You'll see them again.

Sorry for your loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

Sorry for your loss.

😂 ECNL Hat lady? Is that you?

Don't worry when things get tough they'll try to hold their kid back for wins.

Cheater + Repeater.

You'll see them again.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself