ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

chris lavers

Anonymous wrote:Who was speaker 3?

[Anonymous]

So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

[Anonymous]

9/1 date is nonsensical. There was a sensible reason for 8/1 pre-2017. August kids who need to can play up to be with their grade. But August players can’t play down so now you create a large bucket of August kids who are trapped and unable to play with their grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:9/1 date is nonsensical. There was a sensible reason for 8/1 pre-2017. August kids who need to can play up to be with their grade. But August players can’t play down so now you create a large bucket of August kids who are trapped and unable to play with their grade.

Just because this is a hyper competitive area in everything including education which may mean there is a larger percentage of parents who choose to hold their August child back doesn't mean a national standard needs to account for that intentional choice. They should choose the date that creates the least number of mismatched grade vs birthday within the state guidelines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

[Anonymous]

But in some states parents aren’t holding their kids back and the cutoff is 8/1. What is the solution for those trapped players? I thought intention of this was to get rid of the trapped player. That’s what they said initially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 date is nonsensical. There was a sensible reason for 8/1 pre-2017. August kids who need to can play up to be with their grade. But August players can’t play down so now you create a large bucket of August kids who are trapped and unable to play with their grade.

Just because this is a hyper competitive area in everything including education which may mean there is a larger percentage of parents who choose to hold their August child back doesn't mean a national standard needs to account for that intentional choice. They should choose the date that creates the least number of mismatched grade vs birthday within the state guidelines.

If it's 9/1, I'd be heavily in favor of waivers for kids who started school in states with earlier cutoffs to play with grade. Essentially you sign a "kid did not redshirt" statement and you're in with your grade level team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 date is nonsensical. There was a sensible reason for 8/1 pre-2017. August kids who need to can play up to be with their grade. But August players can’t play down so now you create a large bucket of August kids who are trapped and unable to play with their grade.

Just because this is a hyper competitive area in everything including education which may mean there is a larger percentage of parents who choose to hold their August child back doesn't mean a national standard needs to account for that intentional choice. They should choose the date that creates the least number of mismatched grade vs birthday within the state guidelines.

If it's 9/1, I'd be heavily in favor of waivers for kids who started school in states with earlier cutoffs to play with grade. Essentially you sign a "kid did not redshirt" statement and you're in with your grade level team.

9/1 cutoff. For states with an 8/1 cutoff, give a certain number of Aug. kids waivers.

[Anonymous]

Text of CST tweet everyone was looking ofr:
DM: ECNL has no plans to implement the graduation year change until 2026.

-ECNL Director

#CSTruth It would have been tough to stand alone, but a major flex 💪 from @ECNLgirls @ECNLboys if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But in some states parents aren’t holding their kids back and the cutoff is 8/1. What is the solution for those trapped players? I thought intention of this was to get rid of the trapped player. That’s what they said initially.

The states with 8/1 cutoffs don't appear to be a very high population. The goal is to greatly reduce the number of trapped players no date will ever completely eliminate all. That means doing some math and determining which age cut off creates the least number of mismatched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But in some states parents aren’t holding their kids back and the cutoff is 8/1. What is the solution for those trapped players? I thought intention of this was to get rid of the trapped player. That’s what they said initially.

Any player can play up. No player can play down. Easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

They did not say this -- they did not use the word implementation. Theya re going to talk about it but the conversation as to wjhat will actually happen is 6-9 months in the future. They did not even hint that they would have any answers next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

Exactaly. If they werent ready to roll on this why would they need to tell us what the "implementation" WILL look like....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

They did not say this -- they did not use the word implementation. Theya re going to talk about it but the conversation as to wjhat will actually happen is 6-9 months in the future. They did not even hint that they would have any answers next week.

FROM THE TRANSCRIPT
"Not completely unexpected, right? Weren't sure what the timing kind of would be Not completely unexpected, so we will get into that deeper. On our next podcast We'll talk about it and how it may look and how it may be implemented and all those kinds of things."