ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

“Corruption bridge” lolololol. That’s great. Do people not remember that it was SY for decades prior to this 7/8 year experiment of BY? How was the “corruption” all those years?

Exactly…you can tell who is a Q1 parent when they say nonsense like that…they are so delusional and just want their kid playing against kids a grade below them lol!

You’re wrong. PP is correct. Once you go grad year it rolls back to the 90s, which was extremely corrupted with red shirts, fake birth certificates, illiterate “graduates”, etc.

People don’t realize that in the previous iteration of SY, the recruiting / contact ages were not in effect as well. Rolling to grad year will necessitate some lifting of the contact rules that helped stem the gamesmanship parents would go through to get Jonny and Sally on the team. Shoot, look how crazy some of the parents are about gaining an RAE advantage with the BY/SY debate…you think the next step in trying to gain an advantage is a bridge too far?

You can't warn some people enough. They're just bound and determined to drive of the cliff full speed.

Waivers are a jack in a box just waiting to pop out in weird unexpected ways. There's a reason ECNL is avoiding them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

“Corruption bridge” lolololol. That’s great. Do people not remember that it was SY for decades prior to this 7/8 year experiment of BY? How was the “corruption” all those years?

Exactly…you can tell who is a Q1 parent when they say nonsense like that…they are so delusional and just want their kid playing against kids a grade below them lol!

You’re wrong. PP is correct. Once you go grad year it rolls back to the 90s, which was extremely corrupted with red shirts, fake birth certificates, illiterate “graduates”, etc.

People don’t realize that in the previous iteration of SY, the recruiting / contact ages were not in effect as well. Rolling to grad year will necessitate some lifting of the contact rules that helped stem the gamesmanship parents would go through to get Jonny and Sally on the team. Shoot, look how crazy some of the parents are about gaining an RAE advantage with the BY/SY debate…you think the next step in trying to gain an advantage is a bridge too far?

Predicting MLSN going grad year in 5 years or so seems pretty unsubstantiated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

“Corruption bridge” lolololol. That’s great. Do people not remember that it was SY for decades prior to this 7/8 year experiment of BY? How was the “corruption” all those years?

Exactly…you can tell who is a Q1 parent when they say nonsense like that…they are so delusional and just want their kid playing against kids a grade below them lol!

You’re wrong. PP is correct. Once you go grad year it rolls back to the 90s, which was extremely corrupted with red shirts, fake birth certificates, illiterate “graduates”, etc.

People don’t realize that in the previous iteration of SY, the recruiting / contact ages were not in effect as well. Rolling to grad year will necessitate some lifting of the contact rules that helped stem the gamesmanship parents would go through to get Jonny and Sally on the team. Shoot, look how crazy some of the parents are about gaining an RAE advantage with the BY/SY debate…you think the next step in trying to gain an advantage is a bridge too far?

You can't warn some people enough. They're just bound and determined to drive of the cliff full speed.

Waivers are a jack in a box just waiting to pop out in weird unexpected ways. There's a reason ECNL is avoiding them.

Then why did MLS Next embrace them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

“Corruption bridge” lolololol. That’s great. Do people not remember that it was SY for decades prior to this 7/8 year experiment of BY? How was the “corruption” all those years?

Exactly…you can tell who is a Q1 parent when they say nonsense like that…they are so delusional and just want their kid playing against kids a grade below them lol!

You’re wrong. PP is correct. Once you go grad year it rolls back to the 90s, which was extremely corrupted with red shirts, fake birth certificates, illiterate “graduates”, etc.

People don’t realize that in the previous iteration of SY, the recruiting / contact ages were not in effect as well. Rolling to grad year will necessitate some lifting of the contact rules that helped stem the gamesmanship parents would go through to get Jonny and Sally on the team. Shoot, look how crazy some of the parents are about gaining an RAE advantage with the BY/SY debate…you think the next step in trying to gain an advantage is a bridge too far?

You can't warn some people enough. They're just bound and determined to drive of the cliff full speed.

Waivers are a jack in a box just waiting to pop out in weird unexpected ways. There's a reason ECNL is avoiding them.

Then why did MLS Next embrace them?

I'm not writing the same thing over and over just because you won't accept reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

[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: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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

“Corruption bridge” lolololol. That’s great. Do people not remember that it was SY for decades prior to this 7/8 year experiment of BY? How was the “corruption” all those years?

Exactly…you can tell who is a Q1 parent when they say nonsense like that…they are so delusional and just want their kid playing against kids a grade below them lol!

You’re wrong. PP is correct. Once you go grad year it rolls back to the 90s, which was extremely corrupted with red shirts, fake birth certificates, illiterate “graduates”, etc.

People don’t realize that in the previous iteration of SY, the recruiting / contact ages were not in effect as well. Rolling to grad year will necessitate some lifting of the contact rules that helped stem the gamesmanship parents would go through to get Jonny and Sally on the team. Shoot, look how crazy some of the parents are about gaining an RAE advantage with the BY/SY debate…you think the next step in trying to gain an advantage is a bridge too far?

You can't warn some people enough. They're just bound and determined to drive of the cliff full speed.

Waivers are a jack in a box just waiting to pop out in weird unexpected ways. There's a reason ECNL is avoiding them.

Then why did MLS Next embrace them?

I'm not writing the same thing over and over just because you won't accept reality.

You never said why MLS next having waivers is grand but verboten for other leagues. You merely stated that it is so.

[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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

Why would MLSN have their secondary tier leagues go SY instead of BY?

[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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

This is maybe the most useless and ridiculous post of the nearly 550 pages on this thread so far.

“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your sole.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

This is maybe the most useless and ridiculous post of the nearly 550 pages on this thread so far.

“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your sole.”

Great quote!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

This is maybe the most useless and ridiculous post of the nearly 550 pages on this thread so far.

“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your sole.”

Absolutely not. But go on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why is it critical to be addressed now? That makes no sense. Was it critical 8 years ago? What makes it more so now?

You all are suckers. “ECNL/AYSO/USYS” is like saying “Porsche/Ford/Chevy” - one of these things is not like the other….

ECNL doesn’t care about your situation. They banded with rec and rec+ because their plan is to not grow ECNL as “Elite Clubs National League”, but to grow revenue by growing RL, and adding to it feeder “Classic-like” leagues.

The other suckers (besides ECNL SY suckers) are USYS and AYSO. Why?! Because ECNL is coming for their share of wallet.

If you’re an ECNL club that doesn’t have lower tiered leagues (like NPl/DPL/Classic/Rec) then you’re probably not financially stable enough to grow. BUT if you have the ability to add teams of scrubs with dreams of grandeur in the ECNL platform, well now you’re making money! And who filled up loads of teams in all age groups at that skill level? Kids that want to play with their friends, that’s who!

MLSN is making a similar play. It’s smart business. The big difference is MLSN will be smarter about it than ECNL, because MLSN isn’t making decisions based on the personal circumstances of their directors (trapped kid that wasn’t highly recruited). MLSN will use the freedom of age cutoff that USSF is granting to have their scrub leagues be SY, and their elite league be BY…why? ECNL though will just go SY.

This is maybe the most useless and ridiculous post of the nearly 550 pages on this thread so far.

“Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your sole.”

Absolutely not. But go on.

I will give that the posts insinuating that older kids are not on average more likely to beat younger kids while playing soccer and posts thinking the bulk of soccer will not switch to school year in 2026 are much dumber.

But large amount of conjecture in the original post spinning bizarre yarns down various rabbit holes without a clear point pretty much asks to be called out.

[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: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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix 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:

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?

It's because parents with $$$ will get what they want.

Pretty hard for ECNL to not give a held back "regrade" kid a waiver to play down when there's 30k stapled to the application.

Because of this ECNL avoids the entire discussion by not allowing waivers.

For sure. People who are crazy will just hold a kid back or homschool them to acomplish the goal and greese the wheel with some cash.

By 2028 ECNL will be Grad Year. Especially now that JC kids don’t waste eligibility. ECNL wants to extend the cash cow. Will have a U20 team for high school graduates who don’t get recruited. When that happens I hope you can survive the panic attack.

And this is why BY leagues will do better than SY.

Once the corruption bridge is crossed there's no going back.

What do you mean my “do better” because the team won’t be as competitive due to them being younger. Or do you mean more participation and will do better financially?

Most parents with Aug to Dec would not want to play BY or maybe they will? We will find out over the next few years.

I just don’t see kids and families who have kids with actual talent will be afraid of a few kids being held back. I’d be willing to bet we would see less then 5% of players would be hold backs on the girls side.

SY + RAE only matters up until u13 and on lower level generally not competitive teams. Once you get to the highest levels of a sport ie GA MLSN ECNL nobody cares about playing with their friends at school or what month of the year you were born. It's all about can your kid provide enough value to help their team win at the highest level.

Reguarding why letting players play down via waivers is bad is because the action calls into question if the player playing down is actually good or just older. It also opens up the door to coaches exploiting playing down by specifically searching for these type of players. You end up with a team that beats everyone else full of kids playing down on the roster. If SY alternatives (BY) hold the line and do not allow playing down and stay high level parents and players will go to that league because it seems more fair and professional.

Reguarding the u19 comment after the age of 18 what age you are no longer matters at the highest level. Either you're good enough to play or you're not.

Is the Jan kid good or just older?! lol same logic dumbass…BY parent doing mental gymnastics

You’re an idiot. You don’t understand RAE.

Explain it then…is the Jan 2014 kid older or better than the Dec 2014 kid?

Is the Dec 2013 older or better than the Jan 2014 kid?

I was referring to the comment that waivers are bad because we will not know if the kid is good or just older…just like BY is bad because the Jan kids play with kids a grade under them…dumbass

That’s the point. You don’t understand RAE.

You can trot out the same smarmy bromide “are they better or just marginally older” remark through all of youth soccer. But once they get to college or pros nobody says it. But if it was a truthful remark about 16 year olds, why wouldn’t it be true about 20 year olds?

You know the answer intuitively. Maybe not the RAE aspect of it, but intuitively you understand that 11 months of maturation at 6 is different from 14, and is different at 18, etc.

But the idea that you can glibly just undercut any kid by rolling out that glib little statement that makes you and other parents feel better about their own kids situation is pretty lame.

So are you for or against trying to address and fix RAE?

You ever notice how DEI and RAE seem like the same arguement?