ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

How would letting 9/1 kids give them a leg up over 8/1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers will quickly devolve into a way to get held back 16 year old freshman playing against kids in their grade in school (not age).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers will quickly devolve into a way to get held back 16 year old freshman playing against kids in their grade in school (not age).

US club already said they know they can’t help everyone and they are just trying to help the most they can. So you don’t have to worry about hold backs. Since you’re clearly afraid of playing some older kids in club but would probably let your kids play varsity for the high school.

He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers will quickly devolve into a way to get held back 16 year old freshman playing against kids in their grade in school (not age).

How would giving a waiver for August kids who either started on time with their grade lead to hold backs. Some school districts are 8/15 and a lot of the 9/1 allow kids to start later. Especially boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers will quickly devolve into a way to get held back 16 year old freshman playing against kids in their grade in school (not age).

An August born kid would only turn 15 at the beginning of the freshman year. If waivers are done correctly.

[Anonymous]

Aug. kids parents are worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aug. kids parents are worried.

My kids born in December so no, just trying to figure out how this would affect her friend who’s a few months older born in August and is in 7th grade.

I’m not sure how a waiver makes her 16 her freshman year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers for the Aug. kids to play up? The only necessity for waivers in general would be for kids to play down an age group.

Let's assume its 9/1/11 - 8/31/12 cutoff and the goal is to have a 7th grade girls team in a Sept. 1 cutoff school state. Here is the scenario with two 7th grade girls with Aug. birthdays:

Sally who is an 8/5/2012 birthday would be a young 7th grader, and playing with her grade. Now we have Molly with an 8/5/2011 birthday. She is also a 7th grader, but older because she started later. She would be required to play on the 8th grade team by her birthday, even though she is a 7th grader. In order to play with her proper grade, she would need a "waiver" to play down with her 7th grade peers due to her birthday cutoff. Otherwise, she would be the youngest on her 8th grade team, and also one of only one or two 7th graders on an be a 8th grade team.

Let's take the same kids but with an 8/1/11 - 7/31/12 cutoff.

Sally, our young 7th grader, would be required to play with the 6th grade team because of her birthday. She would be the oldest on the team, but also not aligned by grade. She would not need a waiver to play up with her grade, she would just have to be good enough to do so. Molly, our older 7th grader, would be aligned. She would not need any waiver because she is within the parameters of both her grade and the age cutoff.

So with a 9/1 cutoff, we would need a waiver for Molly to play "down" with her grade because she is not aligned by the age cutoff to be a "7th grade" player.

With a 8/1 cutoff, there would be no need for a waiver because even though Sally is playing "down" by her grade, she is aligned by the age cutoff to do so.

So what do the leagues want to do? Do they want to have a waiver system for the Molly's to play "down" with their grade, or play with the older grade and not need a waiver (9/1 cutoff). Or do they not want a waiver system and let the Sally's of the world try to play "up" with her grade if they can, or be misaligned and play with 6th graders (8/1 cutoff). Then that begs the question of what is worse - playing with an 8th grade team as a 7th grader but having the option of a waiver to play with your 7th grade team (9/1 cutoff), or playing with a 6th grade team as a 7th grader but having to win a spot to play up on your 7th grade team (8/1 cutoff).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can email Skip Gilbert. He responds and seems like he is considering different viewpoints.
[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers for the Aug. kids to play up? The only necessity for waivers in general would be for kids to play down an age group.

Let's assume its 9/1/11 - 8/31/12 cutoff and the goal is to have a 7th grade girls team in a Sept. 1 cutoff school state. Here is the scenario with two 7th grade girls with Aug. birthdays:

Sally who is an 8/5/2012 birthday would be a young 7th grader, and playing with her grade. Now we have Molly with an 8/5/2011 birthday. She is also a 7th grader, but older because she started later. She would be required to play on the 8th grade team by her birthday, even though she is a 7th grader. In order to play with her proper grade, she would need a "waiver" to play down with her 7th grade peers due to her birthday cutoff. Otherwise, she would be the youngest on her 8th grade team, and also one of only one or two 7th graders on an be a 8th grade team.

Let's take the same kids but with an 8/1/11 - 7/31/12 cutoff.

Sally, our young 7th grader, would be required to play with the 6th grade team because of her birthday. She would be the oldest on the team, but also not aligned by grade. She would not need a waiver to play up with her grade, she would just have to be good enough to do so. Molly, our older 7th grader, would be aligned. She would not need any waiver because she is within the parameters of both her grade and the age cutoff.

So with a 9/1 cutoff, we would need a waiver for Molly to play "down" with her grade because she is not aligned by the age cutoff to be a "7th grade" player.

With a 8/1 cutoff, there would be no need for a waiver because even though Sally is playing "down" by her grade, she is aligned by the age cutoff to do so.

So what do the leagues want to do? Do they want to have a waiver system for the Molly's to play "down" with their grade, or play with the older grade and not need a waiver (9/1 cutoff). Or do they not want a waiver system and let the Sally's of the world try to play "up" with her grade if they can, or be misaligned and play with 6th graders (8/1 cutoff). Then that begs the question of what is worse - playing with an 8th grade team as a 7th grader but having the option of a waiver to play with your 7th grade team (9/1 cutoff), or playing with a 6th grade team as a 7th grader but having to win a spot to play up on your 7th grade team (8/1 cutoff).

Sally's of the world will not play up. Even if they do. If they are good their clubs will be making them play down. So you go with a system that has the least number of misaligned kids.

I'm sorry for your held back August child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 9/1 cutoff with August waivers is genius. Waivers for a limited number of trapped players playing SY in 2025 is genius. Yet someone who has a source said no waivers. It would give ECNL a leg up over the MLSN alignments.

Waivers for the Aug. kids to play up? The only necessity for waivers in general would be for kids to play down an age group.

Let's assume its 9/1/11 - 8/31/12 cutoff and the goal is to have a 7th grade girls team in a Sept. 1 cutoff school state. Here is the scenario with two 7th grade girls with Aug. birthdays:

Sally who is an 8/5/2012 birthday would be a young 7th grader, and playing with her grade. Now we have Molly with an 8/5/2011 birthday. She is also a 7th grader, but older because she started later. She would be required to play on the 8th grade team by her birthday, even though she is a 7th grader. In order to play with her proper grade, she would need a "waiver" to play down with her 7th grade peers due to her birthday cutoff. Otherwise, she would be the youngest on her 8th grade team, and also one of only one or two 7th graders on an be a 8th grade team.

Let's take the same kids but with an 8/1/11 - 7/31/12 cutoff.

Sally, our young 7th grader, would be required to play with the 6th grade team because of her birthday. She would be the oldest on the team, but also not aligned by grade. She would not need a waiver to play up with her grade, she would just have to be good enough to do so. Molly, our older 7th grader, would be aligned. She would not need any waiver because she is within the parameters of both her grade and the age cutoff.

So with a 9/1 cutoff, we would need a waiver for Molly to play "down" with her grade because she is not aligned by the age cutoff to be a "7th grade" player.

With a 8/1 cutoff, there would be no need for a waiver because even though Sally is playing "down" by her grade, she is aligned by the age cutoff to do so.

So what do the leagues want to do? Do they want to have a waiver system for the Molly's to play "down" with their grade, or play with the older grade and not need a waiver (9/1 cutoff). Or do they not want a waiver system and let the Sally's of the world try to play "up" with her grade if they can, or be misaligned and play with 6th graders (8/1 cutoff). Then that begs the question of what is worse - playing with an 8th grade team as a 7th grader but having the option of a waiver to play with your 7th grade team (9/1 cutoff), or playing with a 6th grade team as a 7th grader but having to win a spot to play up on your 7th grade team (8/1 cutoff).

Excellent post! Again it seems a 9/1 to 7/31 date range with August kids defaulting to playing with their grade is the most sensible and doesn’t require waivers. And for kids that are capable of playing up and it’s in their interest to do so can still play up (just like now).

[Anonymous]

There will be no waivers, I don’t get what this is all about. If they set a day of 9-1 then that is the date. If they set the date at 9-1 and allow waivers then just set the date to 8-1. It didn’t sound like the plan, looks like 9-1 and that is it. There has to be a cut off at some point. August has basically been in the middle now they will be at the end, it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can email Skip Gilbert. He responds and seems like he is considering different viewpoints.
[e-mail]

Thank you! Anyone have an email address for Mike Cullina, CEO of US Club Soccer? Or email addresses for ECNL leadership?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be no waivers, I don’t get what this is all about. If they set a day of 9-1 then that is the date. If they set the date at 9-1 and allow waivers then just set the date to 8-1. It didn’t sound like the plan, looks like 9-1 and that is it. There has to be a cut off at some point. August has basically been in the middle now they will be at the end, it is what it is.

Waivers could be limited to allowing older August kids to play with their grade. Which seems to be a motivating goal for this entire shift in registration! Why wouldn’t we want to facilitate as many August kids as possible playing with their actual grade?