ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

[Anonymous]

That makes sense. I was just thinking from a trapped perspective since that is what they said they were trying to eliminate from the beginning. I just find it odd that other sports have earlier cut offs and no trapped players as a result but soccer can’t seem to figure it out lol.

[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:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

Totally true. The benefit to SY is that those great players born Sept - Dec will actually get to play in the fall of their 8th grade (assuming soccer is a fall sport) and spring of their 12th grade. If the point is to play, SY is the only system that benefits everyone.

If you're truly top tier and serious, the schedule of the masses doesn't deter you from putting in your work for your development

You become top tier by being chosen on the top teams at a very young age, generally because you are on the older age of the age cutoff and then you become motivated to put the work in. So cutoff change will have minimal impacts on those in HS already (but could change who gets recruited) and will have a huge impact on those in about 5th grade and below. The middle will be interesting.

How does being on a team of early developers at a young age that can outrun and out-muscle opponents make a player top tier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That makes sense. I was just thinking from a trapped perspective since that is what they said they were trying to eliminate from the beginning. I just find it odd that other sports have earlier cut offs and no trapped players as a result but soccer can’t seem to figure it out lol.

I have to imagine it all boils down to the standardization of scheduling in other sports. For example, VB has a June 30 cut off (so age groups are Jul 1-June 30) but all HS seasons everywhere conclude before club season starts in Dec/Jan. It doesn't matter when you are born or what group you play in or whether you play up, everyone (who chooses to) plays school season when school starts and goes right into club when school ends. No one is trapped by being on a team where everyone is older, because there is never a conflict with the seasons. Same with basketball - grade level - where school season is in the winter and doesn't conflict with fall ball and spring/summer league/AAU. Seems like the only way to totally eliminate the trapped issue (if that is truly what the concern is) is by standardizing when school season is vs club season. 9/1 or 8/1 or BY or Grad year will all have trapped players die to the variance in school season relative to club season.

[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:No one said trapped players are doomed. The statement was made that BY is systematically dysfunctional for q4 and some q3 players during certain periods of their soccer career.

Don’t waste time arguing with the BY parents who are so blinded by the thought of having to compete with older kids. SY is coming they get one more year and then the party is over for most of those kids.

Isn't someone always older and someone always younger?
Won't SY have a 11 month difference in ages just like BY?

How does this relate to the PP's comment?

We are all BY parents today

Why would people who prefer BY be afraid of competing against older kids, when so many of them want their kids to play up?

Because they are really seeking bragging rights and recognition, not an extra challenge. If you adjust the age group to SY, they are playing with older kids but viewed as "with age." If they play with the same kids across a group divide, that comes with the higher status label of "playing up." Like many of the toxic elements of youth sports, it's all about status-seeking, mostly by the parents.

I love all these assumptions 100% predicated on a false fact that soccer skills, performance, competitiveness are all dictated by birth months

There are many strong q3 and q4 players out there and lots of weak q1 and q2

Also several kids playing up a year.

It all washes out

Are you aware of research showing that it all washes out and birth month has no impact on youth development or are you going with a gut feeling of a random parent of a kid?

The research is what you see on the fields every weekend at ECNL and lower levels of competition.
The differences in average players by birth months isn't that significant when you add decent q3 and q4 to the mix.

RAE at MLS Next and is more pronounced because the best January/February early bloomers are way ahead of November/December late bloomers

Can you point to research showing a relatively even distribution of birth months across top teams at clubs, ECNL, EDP, GA, MLSN, etc.? I am not sure how you can watch a youth soccer game and know everyone's birth month. That is a superpower. Useless, but a superpower nonetheless. And watch the games of "average" teams and ultimately make the assumption that drop out rates are not correlated with birth month.

Your first mistake is including MLSN in this madness
Your second mistake is not knowing I'm not saying I know the birth months

I'm saying the overall mediocre level of competition isn't impacted much at ECNL levels by a few months separation

Nobody is making the argument that going from BY to SY will increase the level of play in any league as ECNL and MLSN non-academies will still be what they are. Places for pay to play clubs where politics rule the day to call home.

It will change who are on the teams, who is starting, who plays what position, who is motivated to work harder to reach another level and who is lined up to play college/pro. And all of this will be a big deal at the younger ages and much less of a big deal at the older ages.

You should write for the Hallmark Channel

The USSF made the change from SY to BY so the best players would be different. It worked.

SY or BY
The best players with the talent, discipline, skills and put in the hard work consistently will still be the best.

Totally true. The benefit to SY is that those great players born Sept - Dec will actually get to play in the fall of their 8th grade (assuming soccer is a fall sport) and spring of their 12th grade. If the point is to play, SY is the only system that benefits everyone.

If you're truly top tier and serious, the schedule of the masses doesn't deter you from putting in your work for your development

You become top tier by being chosen on the top teams at a very young age, generally because you are on the older age of the age cutoff and then you become motivated to put the work in. So cutoff change will have minimal impacts on those in HS already (but could change who gets recruited) and will have a huge impact on those in about 5th grade and below. The middle will be interesting.

How does being on a team of early developers at a young age that can outrun and out-muscle opponents make a player top tier?

Coaches of toddler ball wanna chime in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That makes sense. I was just thinking from a trapped perspective since that is what they said they were trying to eliminate from the beginning. I just find it odd that other sports have earlier cut offs and no trapped players as a result but soccer can’t seem to figure it out lol.

I have to imagine it all boils down to the standardization of scheduling in other sports. For example, VB has a June 30 cut off (so age groups are Jul 1-June 30) but all HS seasons everywhere conclude before club season starts in Dec/Jan. It doesn't matter when you are born or what group you play in or whether you play up, everyone (who chooses to) plays school season when school starts and goes right into club when school ends. No one is trapped by being on a team where everyone is older, because there is never a conflict with the seasons. Same with basketball - grade level - where school season is in the winter and doesn't conflict with fall ball and spring/summer league/AAU. Seems like the only way to totally eliminate the trapped issue (if that is truly what the concern is) is by standardizing when school season is vs club season. 9/1 or 8/1 or BY or Grad year will all have trapped players die to the variance in school season relative to club season.

Different states have different school seasons. That cannot help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That makes sense. I was just thinking from a trapped perspective since that is what they said they were trying to eliminate from the beginning. I just find it odd that other sports have earlier cut offs and no trapped players as a result but soccer can’t seem to figure it out lol.

I have to imagine it all boils down to the standardization of scheduling in other sports. For example, VB has a June 30 cut off (so age groups are Jul 1-June 30) but all HS seasons everywhere conclude before club season starts in Dec/Jan. It doesn't matter when you are born or what group you play in or whether you play up, everyone (who chooses to) plays school season when school starts and goes right into club when school ends. No one is trapped by being on a team where everyone is older, because there is never a conflict with the seasons. Same with basketball - grade level - where school season is in the winter and doesn't conflict with fall ball and spring/summer league/AAU. Seems like the only way to totally eliminate the trapped issue (if that is truly what the concern is) is by standardizing when school season is vs club season. 9/1 or 8/1 or BY or Grad year will all have trapped players die to the variance in school season relative to club season.

Different states have different school seasons. That cannot help.

reading is fundamental - I don't think you read bc if you had, that's exactly the point - standardizing seasons would help. in VB, regardles of what state you're in, the school season is he same (beginning of school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That makes sense. I was just thinking from a trapped perspective since that is what they said they were trying to eliminate from the beginning. I just find it odd that other sports have earlier cut offs and no trapped players as a result but soccer can’t seem to figure it out lol.

I have to imagine it all boils down to the standardization of scheduling in other sports. For example, VB has a June 30 cut off (so age groups are Jul 1-June 30) but all HS seasons everywhere conclude before club season starts in Dec/Jan. It doesn't matter when you are born or what group you play in or whether you play up, everyone (who chooses to) plays school season when school starts and goes right into club when school ends. No one is trapped by being on a team where everyone is older, because there is never a conflict with the seasons. Same with basketball - grade level - where school season is in the winter and doesn't conflict with fall ball and spring/summer league/AAU. Seems like the only way to totally eliminate the trapped issue (if that is truly what the concern is) is by standardizing when school season is vs club season. 9/1 or 8/1 or BY or Grad year will all have trapped players die to the variance in school season relative to club season.

I didn’t consider this - thank you for pointing this out! So funny, I was going to mention volleyball as a sport that has an earlier cut off but you’re right. They have an early school season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

This is why the new SY cutoff should be 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids placed with their grade year. This approach works nationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

Misaligned players who are young August kids in their grade can play up with their grade if that is the right choice for them with their skill level etc. or opt instead to be the oldest playing with the grade below. That misalignment has more options for that kid than the trap you create with a 9/1 cutoff that leaves older August kids only able to play with the grade above them. With 9/1, a waiver system would really need to be in effect from the start or you will lose most of those kids entirely from the sport as they would be the very youngest (RAE impact) plus playing with all kids a grade above (no friends).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

This is why the new SY cutoff should be 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids placed with their grade year. This approach works nationally.

I agree. Good suggestion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

Misaligned players who are young August kids in their grade can play up with their grade if that is the right choice for them with their skill level etc. or opt instead to be the oldest playing with the grade below. That misalignment has more options for that kid than the trap you create with a 9/1 cutoff that leaves older August kids only able to play with the grade above them. With 9/1, a waiver system would really need to be in effect from the start or you will lose most of those kids entirely from the sport as they would be the very youngest (RAE impact) plus playing with all kids a grade above (no friends).

I agree. Did someone mention that they didn’t want to issue any waivers? I thought I read that somewhere but it is hard to keep track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

Misaligned players who are young August kids in their grade can play up with their grade if that is the right choice for them with their skill level etc. or opt instead to be the oldest playing with the grade below. That misalignment has more options for that kid than the trap you create with a 9/1 cutoff that leaves older August kids only able to play with the grade above them. With 9/1, a waiver system would really need to be in effect from the start or you will lose most of those kids entirely from the sport as they would be the very youngest (RAE impact) plus playing with all kids a grade above (no friends).

I agree. And I think the higher-ups are really over thinking this. It was Aug. 1 for a reason back in the day for a long time (it truly captures all kids in a grade because the earliest school cutoff is July 31), and there was no one complaining that it instead should be Sept. 1 because a large number of states have that cutoff.

An Aug. 1 soccer cutoff, even for those Sept. 1 school states, would create a situation where kids who are young for their grade (think an Aug. 15 birthday who is a young 6th grader) could play with his school year (those waivers we talk about), or be the oldest and play with a grade below him. It's always easier to play up, then not have the option to play down (a true trapped player).

What also needs to be considered, and which has been discussed, is that a large portion of August birthday kids with Sept. 1 school cutoff don't start school as soon as they turn 5. Purely antidotal, but a lot of kids I know who are Aug. birth (really all) did not start by the state determined cutoff. So in states with a school cutoff of Sept. 1, you are still going to have a lot of Aug. kids in the grade below anyway, which would align them properly if there were an Aug. 1 soccer cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

Misaligned players who are young August kids in their grade can play up with their grade if that is the right choice for them with their skill level etc. or opt instead to be the oldest playing with the grade below. That misalignment has more options for that kid than the trap you create with a 9/1 cutoff that leaves older August kids only able to play with the grade above them. With 9/1, a waiver system would really need to be in effect from the start or you will lose most of those kids entirely from the sport as they would be the very youngest (RAE impact) plus playing with all kids a grade above (no friends).

I agree. And I think the higher-ups are really over thinking this. It was Aug. 1 for a reason back in the day for a long time (it truly captures all kids in a grade because the earliest school cutoff is July 31), and there was no one complaining that it instead should be Sept. 1 because a large number of states have that cutoff.

An Aug. 1 soccer cutoff, even for those Sept. 1 school states, would create a situation where kids who are young for their grade (think an Aug. 15 birthday who is a young 6th grader) could play with his school year (those waivers we talk about), or be the oldest and play with a grade below him. It's always easier to play up, then not have the option to play down (a true trapped player).

What also needs to be considered, and which has been discussed, is that a large portion of August birthday kids with Sept. 1 school cutoff don't start school as soon as they turn 5. Purely antidotal, but a lot of kids I know who are Aug. birth (really all) did not start by the state determined cutoff. So in states with a school cutoff of Sept. 1, you are still going to have a lot of Aug. kids in the grade below anyway, which would align them properly if there were an Aug. 1 soccer cutoff.

They should make the cutoff 7/1

This way 99.999% of all players would be playing in their school grade in every state.

You might get some players looking to "play down" by choosing to not play with their grade but this would stop once you hit ECNL if you want to be recruited with your school grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think August 1 would envelope the majority but I am not worried about it much. I just found it interesting that MLS may work better for kids in states that I’m talking about (I think there are 10)

The issue with August 1 is there are more states that allow August birthday's to start school, than there are that don't. 99% of parents when they sign up their kids for soccer for the first time are just going to put in their kids info and sign up. There is going to be an larger number of misaligned players with 8/1 vs 9/1. For the older more competitive leagues/ ages hopefully they come up with an August waiver if you are misaligned.

Misaligned players who are young August kids in their grade can play up with their grade if that is the right choice for them with their skill level etc. or opt instead to be the oldest playing with the grade below. That misalignment has more options for that kid than the trap you create with a 9/1 cutoff that leaves older August kids only able to play with the grade above them. With 9/1, a waiver system would really need to be in effect from the start or you will lose most of those kids entirely from the sport as they would be the very youngest (RAE impact) plus playing with all kids a grade above (no friends).

I agree. And I think the higher-ups are really over thinking this. It was Aug. 1 for a reason back in the day for a long time (it truly captures all kids in a grade because the earliest school cutoff is July 31), and there was no one complaining that it instead should be Sept. 1 because a large number of states have that cutoff.

An Aug. 1 soccer cutoff, even for those Sept. 1 school states, would create a situation where kids who are young for their grade (think an Aug. 15 birthday who is a young 6th grader) could play with his school year (those waivers we talk about), or be the oldest and play with a grade below him. It's always easier to play up, then not have the option to play down (a true trapped player).

What also needs to be considered, and which has been discussed, is that a large portion of August birthday kids with Sept. 1 school cutoff don't start school as soon as they turn 5. Purely antidotal, but a lot of kids I know who are Aug. birth (really all) did not start by the state determined cutoff. So in states with a school cutoff of Sept. 1, you are still going to have a lot of Aug. kids in the grade below anyway, which would align them properly if there were an Aug. 1 soccer cutoff.

💯 this! How do we get this perspective in the ears of the leadership at ECNL/Club Soccer/US Youth Soccer/AYSO before the big February meeting? It is critical that it be addressed now because though I suspect this problem will become apparent quickly come fall 2026 if they do go with 9/1 cutoff, I worry that they won’t want to change anything to address it at that stage given all the moaning already about the challenge of clubs rolling out this registration change in the first place.