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:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

These top leagues should have teams in both BY and SY divisions. Otherwise just switching to SY will slowly reverse RAE. This is a unique opportunity to minimize it and grow participation.

You can’t “reverse” RAE.

Why do you people keep posting about something you don’t understand!

Because you aren't reading enough of the thread and quotes for context. You can minimize it if you have BY and SY leagues that are competitive in talent. Switching from BY to SY will "reverse" which months most benefit. This is in the grand scheme, of course. With individuals, you will always have outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL needs to fix the trapped player issues ASAP, before 2026

Why? What is the difference between this year and next year? Or last year and this year?

The fix will come.

If the plan is to change up age groups Fall 26 it would be lame to not at least address next year’s 8th graders who are trapped. Allow them to play games or showcases or something.

[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:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

This doesn’t make sense. It sounds like you’re just saying “SY rocks!”

MLSN trying take over all the pre-ulittle rec leagues is what makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL needs to fix the trapped player issues ASAP, before 2026

Why? What is the difference between this year and next year? Or last year and this year?

The fix will come.

If the plan is to change up age groups Fall 26 it would be lame to not at least address next year’s 8th graders who are trapped. Allow them to play games or showcases or something.

Many already can in trapped leagues that a lot of places have and someone mentioned earlier in the 400s how there are showcases/tourneys that include these players (Super Cup) -- sometimes they are even better than what their teammates may be doing as HS freshmen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

[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:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

This doesn’t make sense. It sounds like you’re just saying “SY rocks!”

MLSN trying take over all the pre-ulittle rec leagues is what makes no sense.

Exactly they don’t care about it enough. If they stay BY and offer biobanding they will not be effected outside of losing some Q3/4 kids which doesn’t make up that much of their player pool anyways.

Ultimately it will be a lot of shuffling around as Q3/4 MLSN kids will leave for ECNL if it means more playing opportunities and some ECNL Q1/2 kids will shift over if MLSN clubs have better opportunities.


Same thing will happen for ECNL and GA if GA stays BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

*IF* this were true, that Q4 birth rates were declining more than Q1-3, that means the Q4 proportion was even higher in the past. So, if the most recent year (2023) was already over 25%, it would be even HIGHER for Q4 in the years everyone is discussing (2007-2012). Yet, you're saying a Q4 representation well under 10% is just "as expected." Some of the stuff in this thread is so completely insane it's hard to believe people aren't just f'g with each other.

[Anonymous]

Naw... Just crazy ass club soccer parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

Seriously, birth month distributions change little year to year. Going to be 500 pages plus of parents who are astute enough to know that age cutoffs will affect their kids, they matter.

[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:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

Seriously, birth month distributions change little year to year. Going to be 500 pages plus of parents who are astute enough to know that age cutoffs will affect their kids, they matter.

What's true is they WILL matter for the next generation of players, however it evolves. Those in the current system, not so much. Changing trapped years may help some. I just hope clubs consider programming for any who don't want to play HS for whatever reason (That will be the new thing!)

[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:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

Seriously, birth month distributions change little year to year. Going to be 500 pages plus of parents who are astute enough to know that age cutoffs will affect their kids, they matter.

Here's the last two decades according to CDC and other online sources you can easily find:

Q1 (January–March): 24% of annual births
Q2 (April–June): 25% of annual births
Q3 (July–September): 26% of annual births
Q4 (October–December): 25% of annual births

Looks pretty evenly distributed and almost exactly what the 2023 birth rates were.

[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:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

You picked “a year” to make an argument for all births. Cherrypick much?

Interesting fact! The US has a declining birth rate, the Q with the largest decline is…drum roll please…Q4!!!! Age cutoffs don’t matter!

Seriously, birth month distributions change little year to year. Going to be 500 pages plus of parents who are astute enough to know that age cutoffs will affect their kids, they matter.

Here's the last two decades according to CDC and other online sources you can easily find:

Q1 (January–March): 24% of annual births
Q2 (April–June): 25% of annual births
Q3 (July–September): 26% of annual births
Q4 (October–December): 25% of annual births

Looks pretty evenly distributed and almost exactly what the 2023 birth rates were.

Its shocking given this real data that USA soccer would choose a program in 2017 that would make it harder for the majority of kids. What a stupid decision!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are 12 months form claifornia having tryouts for 26-27. Thats very soon in soccer world.

This is what I have been saying. It is a 9 month plan to put this in place. It will be in by the end of the winter for tryouts for 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL needs to fix the trapped player issues ASAP, before 2026

Yes they should
How about being on a trap team next fall while your teammates play HS and then in the fall playing on a team that doesn’t matter because they will be broken up. Talk about a wasted year