ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting fact: No other major US sport uses birth year to determine age groups except US soccer.

Interesting fact. There are sports like tennis, that use neither.

There are sports like swimming that use non SY.

Gymnastics uses BY

Not sure what “non SY” is. But my daughter is a swimmer and in meets sanctioned by USA Swimming the ages for the meet are simply determined by age of the swimmers on the first day of the swim meet. Kind of like that rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

2013…..

[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:RAE exists in any year long system, period.

The switch to SY does not fix, address, or otherwise lessen the impact of RAE.

All, ALL IT DOES, is theoretically encourage participation for younger years that will hopefully result in more players later on AND IT FIXES TRAPPED PLAYERS, for the most part with some possible outliers.

The lower participation is theorized because not only are kids split across grades, but, the younger kids also hit with the RAE. By moving the date, the kids at the bad side of RAE will at least be with their classmates.

Youth (and future national) soccer in the USA is doomed if ‘playing with friends and classmates’ has become a main criteria for soccer development.

New term
Playdate Soccer

Again, at the u-littles it is, in order to increase the total pool, so that the vanishingly small number of actually incredibly talented kids have a bigger chance of sticking around.

Regardless, the ending of trapped players is, to me, the best part.

The month of your birth does not determine talent. The player pool is not going to increase because of this. Talented competitive players are not interested in watered down playdate soccer.

And trapped players will still exist no matter the cut off. This is reality.

Talented, competitive, young athletes are certainly interested in playing with friends. Which is why some now leave soccer at a young age (even though they dominate in soccer) to play other sports they dominate in (such as basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, softball, etc.) where they get to play with friends in their grade while dominating in those sports, too.

While there will continue to be some trapped players, there will be much less of them.

And for the BY fans, even though the leagues may change to SY, the national teams will continue to be BY. So all the current Q1 kids will remain in Q1 when they go on to play for the national teams.

Take a look at the rosters of highly competitive teams (those that advance to playoffs or finals for example) - these players come from various areas and are not in the same schools or neighborhoods even. Competitive players are not looking for playdate soccer.

Again, for the millionth time on this chat, this is to increase the number of younger kids in the game. Not teens or pre-teens. Because the more younger kids in the game, the larger the player pool in the sport that can go on to create great players as they advance to pre-teens and teens. And all younger kids enjoy sports where they get to play and win with their friends.

Exactly how does SY increase participation?
Will schools be forming their own ECNL teams based on home rooms?

It’s been explained several times using very small words and simple English. If you can’t comprehend it by now, you’ barely have the intelligence to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Pretty sure it’s never been explained. It’s been suggest that it “just will”, but the “how” is absolutely unexplained. Even your response to
PP is a pretty poorly managed “it just will.”

Not saying it won’t, but let’s be real, the idea that an age cutoff will increase participation is 100% theory.

And it is a fact that participation actually did decrease since the change from SY to BY.

? That’s a meaningless statement. Participation was decreasing before the 2016 switch. Participation peaked in 2010, 6 years before the switch to BY. And participation was increasing from 2022 to present…so the argument is “only look at 2016-2022 and blame BY?”

Dumb, uniformed take.

Thank you for acknowledging that youth participation in soccer is down since change from SY to BY. You can now do your gymnastics to try to explain it away, but you can’t avoid this fact.

And a proudly willfully dumb uniformed response. Your kids will be a reflection of you, good and bad.


I’m sorry for your loss.

Don’t let facts hit you on the way out. Appreciate all your “I think” and “I feel” contributions to the discussion.

Where were those I thinks and I feels? Or is that just the line you roll out that makes you feel smart and also trigger your spouse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

No, I’m not closing my eyes to anything. I’m totally ok with SY, and have no problem making a change to try to increase participation. I’m just pointing out that “organizations believe” and “logically makes sense” are not the same as “the data shows.”

It is an experiment, not a sure thing. Organizations believe lots of things that may not be true or may not be reflected in data. And there are lots of things that “sound right” but are not known. PP keep saying the “the data” and it’s just not actually reflected in the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

No, I’m not closing my eyes to anything. I’m totally ok with SY, and have no problem making a change to try to increase participation. I’m just pointing out that “organizations believe” and “logically makes sense” are not the same as “the data shows.”

It is an experiment, not a sure thing. Organizations believe lots of things that may not be true or may not be reflected in data. And there are lots of things that “sound right” but are not known. PP keep saying the “the data” and it’s just not actually reflected in the data.

The problem you are dealing with is that the belief or narrative is that soccer participation declined because of the switch to birth year, there are numbers to show it did decline during this period and the USSF/USYS/USCS/AYOS are taking actions to allow school year to try to increase soccer participation.

That leaves you in the position to prove otherwise. Not the other way around.

You might be right but nobody is going to believe you until you have some alternative facts to try to convince some to your side. And then you would need a real study with a well created model with a hypothesis and control variables to convince some in youth soccer leadership that you are right and they are wrong.

At the end of the day, nobody has to provide you with concrete evidence to show that you are wrong. Not how it works.

[Anonymous]

562 pages of ya'll bickering amongst yourselves and repeating the same stiff over and over again about an issue that you have no control over is so funny. The powers that be are gonna do what they want when they want and we have little say and our opinion means exactly nothing so not sure why there needs to be 562 pages of discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

Exactly! That’s what it’s all about. BY parents are scared…you can tell by how triggered they get and are unable to articulate reasons why it should remain BY except for throwing tantrums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

Exactly! That’s what it’s all about. BY parents are scared…you can tell by how triggered they get and are unable to articulate reasons why it should remain BY except for throwing tantrums.

Yep and SY supporters are excited at the possibility that their mediocre player may get a bump with newly gained RAE and age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

No, I’m not closing my eyes to anything. I’m totally ok with SY, and have no problem making a change to try to increase participation. I’m just pointing out that “organizations believe” and “logically makes sense” are not the same as “the data shows.”

It is an experiment, not a sure thing. Organizations believe lots of things that may not be true or may not be reflected in data. And there are lots of things that “sound right” but are not known. PP keep saying the “the data” and it’s just not actually reflected in the data.

The problem you are dealing with is that the belief or narrative is that soccer participation declined because of the switch to birth year, there are numbers to show it did decline during this period and the USSF/USYS/USCS/AYOS are taking actions to allow school year to try to increase soccer participation.

That leaves you in the position to prove otherwise. Not the other way around.

You might be right but nobody is going to believe you until you have some alternative facts to try to convince some to your side. And then you would need a real study with a well created model with a hypothesis and control variables to convince some in youth soccer leadership that you are right and they are wrong.

At the end of the day, nobody has to provide you with concrete evidence to show that you are wrong. Not how it works.

Scroll up to where I posted the SOP findings of soccer increasing participation over the last 4 years. Go to that same SOP report for 2024…yourself and see the 4.3% increase. AYSO was SY until 2023..

I don’t need to prove anything. The “belief” is not data. Anyone who looks at the data can see that is started dropping in 2010…during SY….continued during BY, it flatlined, then covid hit and it dropped, and now it’s back up, during BY. That the data! Thats the report the “believers” keep saying proves their point. Meanwhile, like posted above, many other team sports, WHICH ARE SY based! Are still decreasing in participation….which illustrates that that the age cutoff isnt the issue. Thats the data. I don’t have to prove anything because the data doesn’t show a causation with age cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid doing the minimum at BY and is middle to low performer not showing high future potential isn't going to become Gavi with a switch to SY

Your statement doesn't make sense.

SY teams would be 6 months older than BY.

What I think you were trying to say is not very good SY players shouldn't expect to become superstars just by switching to BY. Assuming they can play "down" in BY depending on what month they were born.

Overall it would be nice to have different options so parents can't claim RAE as the booyman holding their kid back or giving them an advantage.

How does SY or BY today/tomorrow change who you were/are/will be as a player, especially if you're mediocre or lesser?

It doesn't at the highest levels.

I was just playing along with the RAE/DEI im a victim disciple.

Ironically, you appear to be labeling yourself a victim with the change from BY to SY.

I am convinced that you’re the most terrified SY supporting parent on this thread. What will your excuse be when this switch doesn’t work out in your favor? Will that be the last straw? Will you pull your kid out then?

I don't actually want SY. I want RAE reduced so our adult national teams can have a larger bases to pick from and then actually have shot compete for high level international tournaments.

It’s soo funny reading all the BY parent comments…stop living through your children and let them just have fun…BY parents don’t like the switch to SY because it is to their disadvantage. Yes, we need a bigger base to pick from and more kids involved so SY is better to ID talent….

Makes no sense. Assuming you are referring to identifying talent for the highest competition levels at national or international — but these levels are BY aligned and so the base to pick from stays exactly as is now. SY does not change that base.

One of the benefits is SY (along with decreasing the number of trapped players) is increasing the number of players in the sport, as more kids stay with the sport longer since they get to play with their friends from school in their grade.

That is false.

This is being trotted out as a justification for the switch by ECNL in “solidarity” with their rec partners, USYS and AYSO.

But let’s be clear, there is zero proof that SY will increase or prolong participation. In fact there is plenty of evidence that the 13/14 year cliff is not sport or age cutoff specific. The SY switch will be an experiment in which over the next 10 years or so we can see if there is any sustained uptick in participation - but as of right now it is only a hypothesis.

And I’m pointing this out as SY supporter!

The reports disagree with you. And yes, I of course support the move to SY. You’d have to be a selfish person not to. If only to minimize trapped players. But there are also benefits to moving to SY and most of the rest of the world uses SY (those whose SY is same as BY and those whose SY is similar to the U.S.)

I’m pointing this poster out as a selfish BY honk.

Just because you want something to be so, doesn’t make it so. Are you a child?

Please, point us to the reportS that:
1) show a school year age cutoff increases participation in soccer.
2) shows that a school year age cutoff reduces the early teen sports participation cliff (70+% of kids quoting organized sports between 12&14).

And for clarification, a report is not:
-An article on a forum quoting people who theorize about the effects
-a YouTube / blog / tweet by some rando (official or not)
- a paragraph on a marketing summary that states a hypothesis based on information not contained or studied in the document it’s written

A report has empirical data illustrating the testing or study if the data.

I know what you’ll produce will either be nothing OR something that sustains your ignorance of this subject. But go on, try, maybe you’ll learn something.

2 pieces of factual data were presented in support. No factual data was presented against. Don’t ask for more facts when 1.) some facts have already been presented (even if you don’t like them), and 2.) no facts have been presented against.

Do your own homework and stop whining.

BS. No data has been present showing SY increases participation. No data has been presented showing SY decreases quits. You’re lying, AND, you can’t prove otherwise, so you’re trying to put the burden of truth on other people.

Doesn’t work that way. You made the claim, you put up the proof. Or…you’re just a gaslighting liar…

We’ve now resorted to someone yelling “liar liar pants on fire” as their argument.

There was a post several pages back with facts about youth soccer participation decreasing after the change to BY, and the results of the US soccer survey where over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.

“Someone said” is where you’re falling down.

Soccer participation has been flat for 24 years, and has been increasing for the past 2.5 years.

The USSF survey is not a study, or a scientific survey, it was about as valuable as a twitter poll. That said, it absolutely is data. And it’s one reason why I support SY. First I don’t think it matters, and bc I don’t think it matters, I’d certainly not want people to be adversely affected even if it was only 30% of people.

Where does it say “someone said”? Which part of that post is not factual? It says survey (not study or “scientific survey”). And it is a fact that youth soccer participation is down since the change from SY to BY.

Yea…you THINK it’s a fact. But it’s not.

Here, maybe this will help you see that what you’ve seen “someone said a few pages back” might not be accurate.

https://www.forsoccer.com/insight/soccer-participation-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=%F0%9F%93%88%2520Participation%2520Shows%2520Significant%2520Growth,40%2525%2520or%2520roughly%25205.7%2520million.

https://www.lakewood.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community-resources/imagine-tomorrow-docs/appendix-c-market-trends.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/#:~:text=Share%20of%20participants%20in%20kids%20soccer%20in,2021%2C%20up%20from%206.2%20percent%20in%202020.

Was this not posted on page 549?

“At a minimum, we all know:

1. that in the recent survey conducted by US Soccer, “Over 60% of respondents say that they have some players adversely impacted by being in different school grades.”

2. The number of kids participating in youth soccer was down after change to Birth Year. (The latest State of Play report found that regular participation in youth soccer among ages 6-12 has fallen from 9.3% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2023.)”

Yes, you can cherry pick a wider date range than the BY span. But the SOP is also more informing than just cherry picked stats.

“Children are playing team sports less regularly. This trend started before the pandemic, which may have accelerated the change even more. Core team sports participation (meaning playing on a regular basis) for youth ages 6-17 declined 6% between 2019 and 2022. That translates to 1.2 million fewer youth regularly playing team sports, according to data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA)….For older youth ages 13-17, total and core participation from 2019 to 2022 decreased by 7% and 6%, respectively….”

That means all those SY based sports too; basketball, baseball, football, etc….

“Sports participation is increasing for girls and declining for boys. Boys (40%) still regularly played sports at a higher rate than girls (35%) among ages 6-17 in 2022, according to SFIA data. But the two genders are going in opposite directions. A decade ago, half of boys regularly played sports. Meanwhile, the latest participation rate for girls is the highest since 2013.”

This means that a large portion of the change in participation COULD be due to gender shifts…and suggesting the BY switch was good for girls, and a change to SY could reverse that for girls…but you know…ECNL championed this because of the experience one of the directors had with his son’s experience…and it’s soccer, which is a boys sport…so who cares?

“High attrition rates remain a problem – and free play offers an opportunity. Churn rate, meaning the percentage of youth who stopped playing a sport each year, often exceeds 40% to 50% for sports tracked by SFIA...Soccer was the only team sport with a significant increase among kids 6-12 coming out of the pandemic. “We think we’re approaching the golden age of soccer in the U.S.,”

Same report you’re referencing…but go on…it’s all doom and gloom since BY according to you….

🤣🤣🤣

You are clearly closing your eyes to everything that don't support your position.
Organizations believe that playing with SY would increase participation rates and would reduce trapped problems. That logically makes sense and would likely occur. Every other country in the world organizes their soccer by school year- except the US. There is not a good reason to keep BY. We get it- your kid is born early in the year- and you are extremely worried that he/she cant compete with kids his/her own age, but that's not a good reason to argue against the change. Have your kid practice more- they will be ok.

Exactly! That’s what it’s all about. BY parents are scared…you can tell by how triggered they get and are unable to articulate reasons why it should remain BY except for throwing tantrums.

Yep and SY supporters are excited at the possibility that their mediocre player may get a bump with newly gained RAE and age group.

The irony is some of them call everyone who doesn’t go full SY-nazi-cultist a BY parent or a Q1 parent. No room for nuance, no room for facts. They are what they project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:562 pages of ya'll bickering amongst yourselves and repeating the same stiff over and over again about an issue that you have no control over is so funny. The powers that be are gonna do what they want when they want and we have little say and our opinion means exactly nothing so not sure why there needs to be 562 pages of discussion.

Yes, the State of Play was discussed 400 pages ago to show there wasn’t a causation with age cutoffs. But look, we’re going for 1,000 pages and that does take the recycling of topics to get there since we have to wait until March to find out we’ll be discussing this until 2026.

Can you set a reminder to repost the same call-out in +/- 200 pages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting fact: No other major US sport uses birth year to determine age groups except US soccer.

Interesting fact. There are sports like tennis, that use neither.

There are sports like swimming that use non SY.

Gymnastics uses BY

Not sure what “non SY” is. But my daughter is a swimmer and in meets sanctioned by USA Swimming the ages for the meet are simply determined by age of the swimmers on the first day of the swim meet. Kind of like that rule.

Gymnastics doesn't use BY except at some very specific elite skills testing at the younger ages. Every competition is based on your level then your grouped with kids by your birthday for states that means you are with kids within a 1 to 2 month window of you. Other competitions that can be a larger span. Not sure how you equate that to BY.

[Anonymous]

Who knew there were so many kids soccer experts

I want the change to SY so my November kid can look better, while not actually becoming better.
Keeping it real.