ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Simple, don't go there. Let kids play GY in middle/high school. Clubs keep BY, that's how.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Simple, don't go there. Let kids play GY in middle/high school. Clubs keep BY, that's how.

I don't agree with GY it invites cheaters

I do agree with BY but only because it's easy to implement + the international standard.

SY+60 is growing on me. It's an easy way to group players by grade and it doesn't allow GY to creep in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Simple, don't go there. Let kids play GY in middle/high school. Clubs keep BY, that's how.

I don't agree with GY it invites cheaters

I do agree with BY but only because it's easy to implement + the international standard.

SY+60 is growing on me. It's an easy way to group players by grade and it doesn't allow GY to creep in.

I think you've made a lot of good points for SY+60 if a league is going to SY. BUT what youth soccer needs is strong leagues that offer both BY and SY. Otherwise, we're going to screw over some kids based on what month they were born (which currently happens -- but we don't fix if all/most go to SY).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

I could also see BY league clubs participating in SY+60 tournaments because all you'd need to do as a club is keep track of players grade in school for teams.

[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:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

I could also see BY league clubs participating in SY+60 tournaments because all you'd need to do as a club is keep track of players grade in school for teams.

It's not random. It's state by state. You'll favor the states with the earliest start dates. And I'm not sure it'll be not be nice to attend tournaments if your state is later -- especially around certain ages where puberty hits -- and you play teams with kids who sure may be only a few months BUT look/appear years older (It's a big complaint on the lacrosse forums -- where concerns about cheating, apparently because of a GY focus, seems to be a problem)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

What would be best -- is a true national age group championship -- clubs from ENCL, USYS, MLS, GA. You'd probably have to use BY for that, tho.

[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:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

I could also see BY league clubs participating in SY+60 tournaments because all you'd need to do as a club is keep track of players grade in school for teams.

It's not random. It's state by state. You'll favor the states with the earliest start dates. And I'm not sure it'll be not be nice to attend tournaments if your state is later -- especially around certain ages where puberty hits -- and you play teams with kids who sure may be only a few months BUT look/appear years older (It's a big complaint on the lacrosse forums -- where concerns about cheating, apparently because of a GY focus, seems to be a problem)

You have 2 options...

1. Get all the school districts in America to agree to a single school start date.

2. Do something like SY+60 which accommodates multiple start dates within a specific range.

If you don't do #1 or #2 SY will always have a group that complains + aren't happy.

[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:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

I could also see BY league clubs participating in SY+60 tournaments because all you'd need to do as a club is keep track of players grade in school for teams.

It's not random. It's state by state. You'll favor the states with the earliest start dates. And I'm not sure it'll be not be nice to attend tournaments if your state is later -- especially around certain ages where puberty hits -- and you play teams with kids who sure may be only a few months BUT look/appear years older (It's a big complaint on the lacrosse forums -- where concerns about cheating, apparently because of a GY focus, seems to be a problem)

You have 2 options...

1. Get all the school districts in America to agree to a single school start date.

2. Do something like SY+60 which accommodates multiple start dates within a specific range.

If you don't do #1 or #2 SY will always have a group that complains + aren't happy.

You'll never get 1. With 2, you get parents of the youngest kids still complaining, perhaps more so -- unless there's a viable BY option. And BY probably is the best way to do 12-month age group tournaments nationwide.

[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:I think the last few posts just highlight the fact that there is no perfect system, and someone is going to be, or feel, disadvantaged. We will see what happens soon enough.

With SY+60 you eliminate all trapped players + would not allow playing down. Which according to what I've read from SY people is a good thing.

Where you would see complaints is from states or school districts that started 9/1 about states or districts that started 8/1. This is because nobody on a 9/1 team would be born before 9/1. (Unless someone moved into the district from an 8/1 district). While on the 8/1 team you'd likely have several close to 8/1 players rostered. Basically SY+60 gives up 2 months of RAE to makes everything work to accommodate different district start dates.

Still not under consideration and still weaker than just going with 7/1.

9/1 is getting more air play than 8/1, so even 10/1 more likely than 8/1.

Instead if digging your heels in on a specific date cutoff. At least think about why SY+60 makes a lot of sense.

Try to poke holes in it. (You won't be able to. Ive tried)

With a single date cutoff someone is always going to be upset.

It makes sense if the intention to have GY (and give the MOST RAE advantage to summer birthdays -- even more than the 12-month version, since you'll have some kids more than 14 months older than the youngest player now. Yes, they MAY be in the same grade but I can't wait for the parents to complain about the size/growth differences! Also, you basically MOST disadvantage all the Q2 kids).

SY+60 specifically protects against GY nonsense and doesn't allow it.

Yes SY+60 does create a 14 month eligibility window that some school districts can exploit. But how else are you going to make SY work across a range of different school district start dates in a single league? No matter what hard date you choose someone will get upset if you're trying to align to a grade in school.

Also the more I think about it SY+60 does not create a 14 month eligibility window for a specific district. If a district started 8/1 they would be in the +60. Each grade would only be 12 months of eligibility because you can't play down with the lower grade. (You need proof of enrollment in a grade)

Where you would see a 14 month disparity is at national events where different state teams with different school start dates play each other.

Put in ECNL terms the regional leagues would all likely have similar school start dates. This would mean a 12 month eligibility window with CY+60

Those regional/national tournaments you note are big deals, I mean, maybe deal-breakers.

2 months of RAE in exchange for completely getting rid of trapped players and not allowing players to play down a grade in school.

Seems like a good trade.

Until that national champion team has all/most summertime and Q3 birthdays.

Kind of agree, Kind of don't agree.

When school districts start is random. Nobody is moving to a district based on its start date for an advantage in youth soccer. Also I don't think 2 months of RAE is that big of a deal for the winners or loses of the birthdate lottery.

The benefits of SY+60 outweigh 2 months of RAE.

It would be nice to go to a tournament and games are 100% players in a single grade.

I could also see BY league clubs participating in SY+60 tournaments because all you'd need to do as a club is keep track of players grade in school for teams.

It's not random. It's state by state. You'll favor the states with the earliest start dates. And I'm not sure it'll be not be nice to attend tournaments if your state is later -- especially around certain ages where puberty hits -- and you play teams with kids who sure may be only a few months BUT look/appear years older (It's a big complaint on the lacrosse forums -- where concerns about cheating, apparently because of a GY focus, seems to be a problem)

You have 2 options...

1. Get all the school districts in America to agree to a single school start date.

2. Do something like SY+60 which accommodates multiple start dates within a specific range.

If you don't do #1 or #2 SY will always have a group that complains + aren't happy.

You'll never get 1. With 2, you get parents of the youngest kids still complaining, perhaps more so -- unless there's a viable BY option. And BY probably is the best way to do 12-month age group tournaments nationwide.

I agree that BY is easier for tournaments nationwide.

But I'd be OK with SY+60 tournaments.

In both cases it's easy to define who plays on which team. With BY its what year were you born. With SY+60 it's what grade are you in school.