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:

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:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

Million dollar question.

All the ECNL antics seem ridiculous when you discover that they could have addressed trapped players in 2017 and they also could address it tomorrow if they wanted to.

I thought it was more the college recruitment argument, anyway? Playing with your grade, makes it easier on all for that, apparently.

Recruiters will find talent no matter where it's at. This is their job.

Parents like to think that recruiters will only find top players for a certain grade in school if they're all on the same field at the same time. This is not true.

So are soccer college players birth months relatively evenly distributed? Other posters say no.

It depends on that you're looking for.

Unicorns will be playing up and with birthdates all over the place.

Regular players burthdares will be grouped at the start of whatever cutoff date is defined.

Agreed, youth age cutoffs will be a factor in which players get to play in college meaning it isn't always the best players.

It's coaches and recruiters jobs to find the best possible players for their teams.

You can try to pass it off as "isn't always the best players" all you want but if coaches want to stay employed in college the have to win. Or have compromising pics of the dean.

Youth age cutoffs will be a factor in which players get to play in college.

No it won't. The same amout of players will get recruited. The only difference might be their birth month. (Over time)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

Million dollar question.

All the ECNL antics seem ridiculous when you discover that they could have addressed trapped players in 2017 and they also could address it tomorrow if they wanted to.

I thought it was more the college recruitment argument, anyway? Playing with your grade, makes it easier on all for that, apparently.

Recruiters will find talent no matter where it's at. This is their job.

Parents like to think that recruiters will only find top players for a certain grade in school if they're all on the same field at the same time. This is not true.

So are soccer college players birth months relatively evenly distributed? Other posters say no.

It depends on that you're looking for.

Unicorns will be playing up and with birthdates all over the place.

Regular players burthdares will be grouped at the start of whatever cutoff date is defined.

Agreed, youth age cutoffs will be a factor in which players get to play in college meaning it isn't always the best players.

It's coaches and recruiters jobs to find the best possible players for their teams.

You can try to pass it off as "isn't always the best players" all you want but if coaches want to stay employed in college the have to win. Or have compromising pics of the dean.

Youth age cutoffs will be a factor in which players get to play in college.

No it won't. The same amout of players will get recruited. The only difference might be their birth month. (Over time)

"a factor in which players"

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

According to the podcasts, ECNL's current trapped player exemption left nobody happy, it wasn't working for the reasons they outline. So the only true solution was to coordinate with other leagues to go back to SY to address the trapped player problem and stop kids from leaving soccer at such young ages.

Not clear at all if they would have been allowed to grant permanent waivers to so many trapped players.

I don't think the trap year is why the vast majority of kids leave soccer. Often, it's other sports OR activities OR not getting on the team they wanted OR realizing it's not for them. A club program of year-round practice/play is not for everyone. Making it more fun/less of a grind would go a lot farther than fixing "trapped" seasons.

All perhaps true, but misses the point. The point is that Q3/Q4 kids disproportionately quit soccer.

All perhaps true but you obviously have a kid born in Q3/4 and have latched onto SY as their road to success.

Sorry but if your kid rides the bench now over time they'll find their way to the bench again while playing down.

I just don’t understand why people default to being jerks. Incidentally, I do have a Q3 daughter and she starts for the pre-ECNL team at a DMV ECNL club. For her, I’d prefer not to change the system as she’s benefited from always playing with slightly older kids and she’s doing just fine with her current team, but I fear her club (which just cares about winning) will push her to “play down” to strengthen the younger team. If so, she’ll likely try to move to another ECNL club that will let her “play up.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

Ran out of words to disagree I see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My Q4 kid doesn’t ride the bench but is smaller than the rest of her team. She was put on a second team. Plays every minute of every game. Selfishly, I hope that they do go SY in 26 because I really think that’s the only way she can make a top team right now until everyone has gone through puberty and it all evens out. I have to think that there are others like me in this situation. Not all Q4 kids ride the bench, but maybe their size is impacting their placement right now.

Couple of secrets for you...
1. If your kid isn't on the top team now it's unlikely that they're going to bring her up in the future. Start trying out at other clubs and see if you can get on their top team.
2. Girls don't get taller after puberty. Also after puberty they often get worse at soccer because their body changes and they gain weight. (Boys are the opposite)

1. Fair. When she would play with her grade she would be easily in the middle of the pack/ even in the top 1/3 - I’m hoping given her skill level and playing time on her current team that height won’t be the factor and it could make the difference. But who knows. Time will tell if it’s just her size or if it’s truly her skill level. Because you never know who is coming out from all different clubs.
2. That’s why I said when everyone has gone through puberty because until they are done everyone’s height is still up in the air.

[Anonymous]

Anyone heard anything more about 8/1 or 9/1 cutoff dates? Do you think this will be shared in the next ECNL podcast?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

According to the podcasts, ECNL's current trapped player exemption left nobody happy, it wasn't working for the reasons they outline. So the only true solution was to coordinate with other leagues to go back to SY to address the trapped player problem and stop kids from leaving soccer at such young ages.

Not clear at all if they would have been allowed to grant permanent waivers to so many trapped players.

I don't think the trap year is why the vast majority of kids leave soccer. Often, it's other sports OR activities OR not getting on the team they wanted OR realizing it's not for them. A club program of year-round practice/play is not for everyone. Making it more fun/less of a grind would go a lot farther than fixing "trapped" seasons.

All perhaps true, but misses the point. The point is that Q3/Q4 kids disproportionately quit soccer.

And now Q1/Q2 will. Great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD went through BY change and was (is this year too) trapped. Dumbest move in sports history. Why have 8th graders doing nothing while 1/2 their team play HS? Why we watching 1/2 the team graduate and play a year of NCAA while we play with 1/2 a team of new players? There will be old and young players at both BY or SY, but only one (BY) traps players. Insanity then and insanity now. Only BY maxis on this thread want their very like great team to remain and not blow it up like we all went through. I'm sorry it'll happen, but for the future of the kids in this county, please Lord go to SY!

If your club had a good program, there should be a trapped team and league which may actually have a better experience than teammates in the 9th grade, because HS always isn't all that, either (depends on the district -- not all have freshmen OR even JV squads, so it could be a year of bench-sitting if they can even make the team -- what then?).

So, some trapped players, in that scenario, still benefit by training/playing with the club along with a different coach -- all new opportunities to stand out and/or lead. In that sense, those trapped players should be better prepared when they DO enter the 9th grade, perhaps more so than the rest of their grade, to compete for varsity, again if their district has fewer options.

That said, there's been enough negative experiences by people to push for SY options (and sorry you currently have one). It won't end trapped players, though. They will still exist if BY becomes the only choice but fewer so the entire soccer world will care less than the current trapped player potential plight.

How will there be trapped players in SY? Truly trapped with an older class, with no option to play with their class, as opposed to misaligned with a younger class, where they could play with their class by playing up (which might necessitate playing with a less competitive club / league if they’re not good enough to play up with their current club / league)? I’m not saying it’s not suboptimal for those kids, but they’re not actually “trapped.”

There are many, many comments earlier in this thread that could detail this better than I but the gist is when ECNL or whatever league picks a date, there will be states with start dates that conflict, pairing a group of kids with an older cohort just like now. That also was a problem with SY before. And dismissing these concerns is just like I predicted.

Kids get “trapped” when the soccer cutoff is later than the school cutoff. The only way that happens in SY system is if soccer cutoff is 9/1, in which case August kids in states with an 8/1 school cutoff are trapped. This is the argument for 8/1 soccer cutoff—you eliminate the trap problem. But, by setting the soccer cutoff earlier than the school cutoff, you create the “misalignment” problem for kids born between the two cutoffs.

Hi, gaslighting.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

Million dollar question.

All the ECNL antics seem ridiculous when you discover that they could have addressed trapped players in 2017 and they also could address it tomorrow if they wanted to.

I thought it was more the college recruitment argument, anyway? Playing with your grade, makes it easier on all for that, apparently.

Recruiters will find talent no matter where it's at. This is their job.

Parents like to think that recruiters will only find top players for a certain grade in school if they're all on the same field at the same time. This is not true.

So are soccer college players birth months relatively evenly distributed? Other posters say no.

It depends on that you're looking for.

Unicorns will be playing up and with birthdates all over the place.

Regular players burthdares will be grouped at the start of whatever cutoff date is defined.

College soccer doesn’t have an “age cutoff”

It’s a competitive cauldron with 5 year eligibility.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

According to the podcasts, ECNL's current trapped player exemption left nobody happy, it wasn't working for the reasons they outline. So the only true solution was to coordinate with other leagues to go back to SY to address the trapped player problem and stop kids from leaving soccer at such young ages.

Not clear at all if they would have been allowed to grant permanent waivers to so many trapped players.

I don't think the trap year is why the vast majority of kids leave soccer. Often, it's other sports OR activities OR not getting on the team they wanted OR realizing it's not for them. A club program of year-round practice/play is not for everyone. Making it more fun/less of a grind would go a lot farther than fixing "trapped" seasons.

All perhaps true, but misses the point. The point is that Q3/Q4 kids disproportionately quit soccer.

??? Data source please. This sounds like a wishful statistic of a Q3/4 bench parent

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

Million dollar question.

All the ECNL antics seem ridiculous when you discover that they could have addressed trapped players in 2017 and they also could address it tomorrow if they wanted to.

I thought it was more the college recruitment argument, anyway? Playing with your grade, makes it easier on all for that, apparently.

Recruiters will find talent no matter where it's at. This is their job.

Parents like to think that recruiters will only find top players for a certain grade in school if they're all on the same field at the same time. This is not true.

So are soccer college players birth months relatively evenly distributed? Other posters say no.

It depends on that you're looking for.

Unicorns will be playing up and with birthdates all over the place.

Regular players burthdares will be grouped at the start of whatever cutoff date is defined.

College soccer doesn’t have an “age cutoff”

It’s a competitive cauldron with 5 year eligibility.

Youth soccer does have cutoffs. As stated earlier a few times, RAE has a cumulative/additive effect over time for kids resulting an an uneven distribution of birth months for top players that impacts who will have an opportunity to play in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

Ran out of words to disagree I see.

Nope. But the ignorant opinions on display proudly waived around as truths and facts are better described as being a clown. It’s pointless trying to add information in a discussion when the other person is trotting out counter factuals and illogic as if they burped out next prime number.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone actually arguing for BY from a “best for the system” perspective? For a reason other than change management (lazy) or international equivalency (irrelevant to 99.9999% of people on this thread)? I get that the currently RAE advantaged group wants to keep their advantage, and the currently RAE disadvantaged group wants to seize the advantage. The neutral reason for SY is eliminating trapped players. What is the neutral reason for BY?

BY separates age groups from school grade. This keeps youth soccer from slipping into the GY (graduation year) debate because the cutoff isn't associated with your grade in school in any way.

BY is easy to administer. Not confusing in any way.

BY doesn't have to address different school district start dates

BY is what currently exists. Changing to SY will mean updating all kinds of different club documents and marketing.

Ok....brave! Haven't seen someone try to advocate for splitting up school grades. Probably not alot of takers here for that but I applaud the effort. Not everyone should let common sense get in their way.

Separates age groups from school grade to avoid everything slipping into chaos and anarchy?? I'd polish it up a bit and come back to try again.

You asked why someone would advocate for BY and I provided a list of reasons. No polish is required.

The problem with sites like this one is that it suffers from group think. Everyone here seems to be approaching the subject from a what's in it for me perspective.

If you think from a club owners perspective BY makes a lot of sense. It's easy to administer, it already exists, etc. One aspect that parents don't consider is that clubs DO NOT want GY leagues. This is because if BY became SY which became GY then suddenly private schools could participate in leagues like ECNL. Private schools can give scholorships and buy winning teams. This would kill the currently pay to play model.

Make a little more sense now.

Your forgetting that clubs want the more money, aka higher participation, that comes with SY. Not easier to administer, they would be the same. But the already exists reason for nervous clubs afraid of change did push it out a year. Based on what is being said about the survey, clubs picked SY not BY

SY might be good for town or lower level rec leagues. But, once you cross into the competitive world nobody cares about playing with their friends at school anymore. Also coaches hold competitive tryouts every year and could care less who atrends which school or grade.

SY was picked over BY, BY mandate removed

Currently it's a league by league decision.

We'll see where it ends up.

Last month, BY was removed as a mandate. You should bet all your money on all the leagues sticking with BY.

There was no "mandate" leagues like MLSN allowed players to play down. Any league could have chosen to do the same thing.

ECNL just wants to throw it's weiner around in an attempt to look powerful. If ECNL wanted to let players play down they could have at any time. (Just like MLSN does now)

Youth soccer, including ECNL as a coalition, is standing up to the bully that US Soccer is. US Soccer brings virtually nothing to the table for kids but wants their lunch money.

Again, ECNL could have implemented biobanding (just like MLSN) at any time and there wouldn't be any "trapped" players.

US Soccer isn't a bully. ECNL leadership thinks that they're more important than they are.

It seems like ECNL stood up for all of youth soccer for change but without inside knowledge, I don't know it. All I can say is that youth soccer including ECNL stood to US Soccer.

There was nothing for ECNL to stand up to. ECNL could have implemented biobanding at any time just like MLS Next did. This would have eliminated trapped players.

This could have happened the day after everyone switched to BY in 2017. It could also happen tomorrow if ECNL wanted to.

Why don’t they do that?

Million dollar question.

All the ECNL antics seem ridiculous when you discover that they could have addressed trapped players in 2017 and they also could address it tomorrow if they wanted to.

I thought it was more the college recruitment argument, anyway? Playing with your grade, makes it easier on all for that, apparently.

Recruiters will find talent no matter where it's at. This is their job.

Parents like to think that recruiters will only find top players for a certain grade in school if they're all on the same field at the same time. This is not true.

So are soccer college players birth months relatively evenly distributed? Other posters say no.

It depends on that you're looking for.

Unicorns will be playing up and with birthdates all over the place.

Regular players burthdares will be grouped at the start of whatever cutoff date is defined.

College soccer doesn’t have an “age cutoff”

It’s a competitive cauldron with 5 year eligibility.

Youth soccer does have cutoffs. As stated earlier a few times, RAE has a cumulative/additive effect over time for kids resulting an an uneven distribution of birth months for top players that impacts who will have an opportunity to play in college.

You are sooo close to understanding RAE.

Once it finally clicks, you’ll understand why the change is stupid and doesn’t actually solve anything. AND you’ll understand what ECNL has championed was never about participation / drop out rates etc. and despite what they said in their podcast, it is 100% about RAE.

[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:What would ECNL do if GA chooses to stay BY but with the same biobanding rules as MLS Next?

Writing would be on the wall where NWSL Next will happen.

My point being that there's many different possible outcomes if leagues choose to define their own eligibility windows.

What about this one? There's a very good chance that leagues let their olders age out as BY + only implement SY for youngers. Nobody is considering this.

lol, you nailed. NOBODY is considering this. Because there is no way treat ECNL age groups differently. You'll end up with overlap and chaos for what reason? To satisfy BY parents. Its over guys, they SY victory lap is imminent.

No, it keeps teams together that have been playing with each other for multiple years.

Also thers a good chance that u14 and up trapped players won't want to play down even if given the option.

You don't know this yet because you're a ulittle parent.

Hate to break it to you but most HS trapped players don’t want to continue to play up and get screwed out of their prime recruiting years because they are misaligned from the rest of their team and held hostage by NCAA rules. Maybe in your q1-2 mindset they want to stay on established teams or maybe they just aren’t telling you what they think you don’t want to hear.

Nobody who wants to play in college wants to sign up to be the junior playing on a team of seniors. Playing ‘up’ vs on time really isn’t a badge of honor by the time they are in HS…

Sigh...

Top players will get recruited if they live on the moon. It doesn't matter.

So the birth month distribution of college soccer players is relatively even? Cause that's not what other posters are saying.

College soccer, like HS soccer and pro-soccer is not “age cutoff” sensitive, nor pulling from an age based pool outside of incoming freshman. The transfer portal also makes teams messy for “birth month” based thinking.

Not true if the birth month distribution is skewed.

🤡

Ran out of words to disagree I see.

Nope. But the ignorant opinions on display proudly waived around as truths and facts are better described as being a clown. It’s pointless trying to add information in a discussion when the other person is trotting out counter factuals and illogic as if they burped out next prime number.

I am sorry if your vision of the world isn't accurate, no reason to get angry at the messenger who is helping you have clarity on a subject.

You don't have to believe me that college sports have continuation of RAE from youth sports. The NCAA says so, https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/19/the-birthday-effect-in-college-athletics.aspx.

The age cutoffs for specific youth sports impacts who has an opportunity to play sports in college.

Note that when the report was put out youth soccer was under school year.