ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this is basically what you’re talking about

https://www.usalacrosse.com/sites/default/files/documents/Games/USAL-AgeGroupChart-15mo-24-25.pdf

which makes a lot of sense and captures the most people within their grade and allows the late summer kids to play with their grade if they started school later. If you’re a Sept 2 kid and a grade ahead, you’d be playing with the grade below, but could play up if the team will have you. There is a much smaller group of kids who are past Sept 1 that are a full year ahead, and a much, much larger group of late summer birthdays who started school later (those July/Aug kids).

No, 9/1 +60 is different in that it doesn't allow players born 60 days before 9/1 to play in X grouping unless they're enrolled in that grade in school.

What this does is address ALL trapped players. But at the same time guarantee that all players on a team in a grouping are X grade in school. Which is what all the SY people feel is beneficial for scouts at events and showcases.

Make sense?

Can you point to anybody who is an actual in a position to make a youth soccer decision suggesting any waivers or allowance outside of the prescribed 12 month period? I have only seen the opposite and am only familiar with MLSN's late developer loophole to get older kids on a team. Doesn't seem like exceptions are being discussed.

Here's why leagues and clubs will consider SY+60...

It's because if they don't there will still be an annoying group of trapped player parents complaining all the time.

Also, many clubs provide practice sessions for trapped players while their teammates are playing high school to keep them enagaed. This costs $$$ in both fields and coaches.

So.. less complains and less costs are why SY+60 will happen.

No one will consider this, it is a crazy idea that I am not sure why it is even a topic.
Ok maybe some rec leagues but once it get a little serious then this is dumb.

You've provided nothing to back up your statement and called SY+90 dumb. Good job your feedback is meaningless.

The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.

SY+60 is just a variation of the Lacrosse 14 month grouping. The difference is players born 7/1 + 8/1 can only play with their group if they're enrolled in that grade at school. What this does is guarantee all players on the field will always be a certain grade in school. Which most of the SY people think is a benefit for scouting.

This is all meaningless and will never happen. Still not sure why this is being discussed, people must be really bored 🥱

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

I don't have a vote, you don't have to convince me. But Skip didn't even come close to suggesting exceptions to a 12 month cutoff or copying lacrosse's 16 month overlapping age groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

If they don't eliminate trapped players people will always question why go through all the effort of changing from SY to BY.

Also if there continues to be trapped players they SY leagues will lose them to BY leagues. This is because under BY they're 6 months younger than everyone else. Under SY they'd be 10-12 months younger than everyone else on the team.

So by not implementing SY+60 and going with a hard date leagues will actually lose trapped players to BY leagues. This might be offset by the players they gain from BY leagues that don't want to be the youngest on a BY team. However with SY+60 you won't lose any players to BY because trapped players are completely eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

If they don't eliminate trapped players people will always question why go through all the effort of changing from SY to BY.

Also if there continues to be trapped players they SY leagues will lose them to BY leagues. This is because under BY they're 6 months younger than everyone else. Under SY they'd be 10-12 months younger than everyone else on the team.

So by not implementing SY+60 and going with a hard date leagues will actually lose trapped players to BY leagues. This might be offset by the players they gain from BY leagues that don't want to be the youngest on a BY team. However with SY+60 you won't lose any players to BY because trapped players are completely eliminated.

I don’t think you grasp the concept here they are not eliminating the trap year only reducing the number of trapped players.
Here is the second part of the discussion on the pod cast. It appears you will be one of the annoyed.

So that will solve a lot of trapped issues. It will not solve all, but there is no way to solve all. There is no perfectly right answer, which means there's always going to be somebody who's now going to be annoyed that it's september 1 or august 1 or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

If they don't eliminate trapped players people will always question why go through all the effort of changing from SY to BY.

Also if there continues to be trapped players they SY leagues will lose them to BY leagues. This is because under BY they're 6 months younger than everyone else. Under SY they'd be 10-12 months younger than everyone else on the team.

So by not implementing SY+60 and going with a hard date leagues will actually lose trapped players to BY leagues. This might be offset by the players they gain from BY leagues that don't want to be the youngest on a BY team. However with SY+60 you won't lose any players to BY because trapped players are completely eliminated.

I don’t think you grasp the concept here they are not eliminating the trap year only reducing the number of trapped players.
Here is the second part of the discussion on the pod cast. It appears you will be one of the annoyed.

So that will solve a lot of trapped issues. It will not solve all, but there is no way to solve all. There is no perfectly right answer, which means there's always going to be somebody who's now going to be annoyed that it's september 1 or august 1 or whatever.

They can eliminate it by rolling out comprehensive solutions, including those discussed here. And they have the time to do so given rollout isn’t until fall 2026. Leadership continues to hear a lot of feedback about these variables and impacts from their own constituents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

If they don't eliminate trapped players people will always question why go through all the effort of changing from SY to BY.

Also if there continues to be trapped players they SY leagues will lose them to BY leagues. This is because under BY they're 6 months younger than everyone else. Under SY they'd be 10-12 months younger than everyone else on the team.

So by not implementing SY+60 and going with a hard date leagues will actually lose trapped players to BY leagues. This might be offset by the players they gain from BY leagues that don't want to be the youngest on a BY team. However with SY+60 you won't lose any players to BY because trapped players are completely eliminated.

I don’t think you grasp the concept here they are not eliminating the trap year only reducing the number of trapped players.
Here is the second part of the discussion on the pod cast. It appears you will be one of the annoyed.

So that will solve a lot of trapped issues. It will not solve all, but there is no way to solve all. There is no perfectly right answer, which means there's always going to be somebody who's now going to be annoyed that it's september 1 or august 1 or whatever.

They can eliminate it by rolling out comprehensive solutions, including those discussed here. And they have the time to do so given rollout isn’t until fall 2026. Leadership continues to hear a lot of feedback about these variables and impacts from their own constituents.

Not going to happen

[Anonymous]

SY+60 guy is the craziest in the group so far. Can not imagine what trauma he will have after ECNL releases their final plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The US Youth Soccer guy literally called out what Lacrosse was doing with groupings as something they were looking at.” When did he say that? I missed it.

https://youtu.be/Scr1UOywbQI?si=U7a2NFoEpJ0NY-py

1:45

Now I see why you missed. He didn't say it.

No mention of expanding a 12 month age grouping, only that calendar year cutoffs lowers soccer participation by pushing kids to other sports, like lacrosse.

Skip is talking to Lacrosse leadership and aware of how Lacrosse groups players.

But it doesn't really matter...

If SY is implemented with a hard cutoff date there will continue to be a group of players that are trapped + who's parents complain.

SY+60 addresses this issue for clubs and leagues.

If you're not willing to address all trapped players just stay BY because clubs and leagues will continue to field the same trapped player complaints.

They are addressing the trapped player just not eliminating the trap player. Here is the screen shot of the discussion. Trap year will not be eliminated for all but will be reduced below 10%.

The issue is how do we reduce significantly the number of those trapped players Immediately? By going from January 1 to August or September, you reduce that number significantly because I think we estimate it's around 30 percent. Now. It'll drop, you know, maybe to as low as 10 percent or below. If we go to September 1, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than maybe to as low as 10% or below. If we go to September one, the thinking is it'll drop even lower than it would be at August one, and I think in our research September one was like 75% of States were a September one or later.

If they don't eliminate trapped players people will always question why go through all the effort of changing from SY to BY.

Also if there continues to be trapped players they SY leagues will lose them to BY leagues. This is because under BY they're 6 months younger than everyone else. Under SY they'd be 10-12 months younger than everyone else on the team.

So by not implementing SY+60 and going with a hard date leagues will actually lose trapped players to BY leagues. This might be offset by the players they gain from BY leagues that don't want to be the youngest on a BY team. However with SY+60 you won't lose any players to BY because trapped players are completely eliminated.

Your mediocre July or Aug. player has no value to ECNL college recruiting. They will not bend the rule, so you can slip into a NL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SY+60 guy is the craziest in the group so far. Can not imagine what trauma he will have after ECNL releases their final plan.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I think SY+60 is the way to address SY across the board. I wish all the ECNL hats nothing but the best. But, if you implement SY half ass you're going to fail.

Not that I care either way because personally I prefer BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY+60 guy is the craziest in the group so far. Can not imagine what trauma he will have after ECNL releases their final plan.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I think SY+60 is the way to address SY across the board. I wish all the ECNL hats nothing but the best. But, if you implement SY half ass you're going to fail.

Not that I care either way because personally I prefer BY.

You can reply every single post here with your SY + 60 agenda. The truth is ECNL will set the date to 9/1. We will have the release in 6 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY+60 guy is the craziest in the group so far. Can not imagine what trauma he will have after ECNL releases their final plan.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I think SY+60 is the way to address SY across the board. I wish all the ECNL hats nothing but the best. But, if you implement SY half ass you're going to fail.

Not that I care either way because personally I prefer BY.

You can reply every single post here with your SY + 60 agenda. The truth is ECNL will set the date to 9/1. We will have the release in 6 weeks.

I believe this is correct and the way it will be!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY+60 guy is the craziest in the group so far. Can not imagine what trauma he will have after ECNL releases their final plan.

You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

I think SY+60 is the way to address SY across the board. I wish all the ECNL hats nothing but the best. But, if you implement SY half ass you're going to fail.

Not that I care either way because personally I prefer BY.

You can reply every single post here with your SY + 60 agenda. The truth is ECNL will set the date to 9/1. We will have the release in 6 weeks.

I believe this is correct and the way it will be!

Well good thing you believe!