ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 to 7/31 and grade year for August is better than 9/1 to 8/31 + 60.

Hmmm... Trying to decifer this one.

1st I can already see that dates only won't stop players from playing down on lower grade teams.

I don't understand the GY comment

School Year with an age range of 9/1 to 7/31. August Birthdays get sorted by grade. It’s been talked about previously on this thread. No one is more than 12 months older than anyone. Trapped players all but eliminated for kids that meet the birthday date ranges for each state.

But, for better or worse, the soccer leagues will likely go with a flat 9/1 to 8/31 (except those that remain BY).

This is almost the same thing as SY+60

The almost part is your GY month player could be a 3 year hold back that just happens to be in that grade.

Also if a SY+60 player is playing against another team with the same school cutoff date it's a 12 month eligibility window.

General FYI GY+60 could also be written 9/1+60

Except this is much better than SY + 60 and keeps it at a 12 month window.

[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).

This is the +60 flaw (besides just being stupid)—you make it even harder for the youngest kids in the age bracket to compete. Hard enough to compete with kids up to a year older, now you make them compete with kids up to 14 months older. And the kids who will have to deal with this are least prepared to do so because, under the BY system they've always played in, they’ve always being the oldest kids on the team.

MLSN players have to deal with biobanding players playing down, who can be 14 to 16 months older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/1 to 7/31 and grade year for August is better than 9/1 to 8/31 + 60.

Hmmm... Trying to decifer this one.

1st I can already see that dates only won't stop players from playing down on lower grade teams.

I don't understand the GY comment

School Year with an age range of 9/1 to 7/31. August Birthdays get sorted by grade. It’s been talked about previously on this thread. No one is more than 12 months older than anyone. Trapped players all but eliminated for kids that meet the birthday date ranges for each state.

But, for better or worse, the soccer leagues will likely go with a flat 9/1 to 8/31 (except those that remain BY).

This is almost the same thing as SY+60

The almost part is your GY month player could be a 3 year hold back that just happens to be in that grade.

Also if a SY+60 player is playing against another team with the same school cutoff date it's a 12 month eligibility window.

General FYI GY+60 could also be written 9/1+60

The August birthday would obviously have to be a kid whose age is on the border of the two grades at issue. Don’t get ridiculous in trying to poke holes in a system that is better.

[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).

This is the +60 flaw (besides just being stupid)—you make it even harder for the youngest kids in the age bracket to compete. Hard enough to compete with kids up to a year older, now you make them compete with kids up to 14 months older. And the kids who will have to deal with this are least prepared to do so because, under the BY system they've always played in, they’ve always being the oldest kids on the team.

MLSN players have to deal with biobanding players playing down, who can be 14 to 16 months older.

Right. So thats the flaw with biobanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

[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).

This is the +60 flaw (besides just being stupid)—you make it even harder for the youngest kids in the age bracket to compete. Hard enough to compete with kids up to a year older, now you make them compete with kids up to 14 months older. And the kids who will have to deal with this are least prepared to do so because, under the BY system they've always played in, they’ve always being the oldest kids on the team.

MLSN players have to deal with biobanding players playing down, who can be 14 to 16 months older.

Not sure if you’re ready to have the glass shattered but biobanding is up to 23 months difference. Example my son is a Dec 2011 one of his teammates is a January 2010. Let that sink in.

The fact anyone with kids in ECNL complaining over any 1 year span should stop crying. BY or SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

[Anonymous]

It's been a hard slog lately but we may reach 600 yet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

Right. People will leave SY leagues because of their hard cut off to join BY leagues with their hard cutoffs.

9/1 to 7/31 with flex August (I.e. August birthdays bases on actual grade) remains best option. But expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

Right. People will leave SY leagues because of their hard cut off to join BY leagues with their hard cutoffs.

9/1 to 7/31 with flex August (I.e. August birthdays bases on actual grade) remains best option. But expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

Again, what you're calling "9/1 to 7/31 with flex August" is the same thing as "SY+60".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

Right. People will leave SY leagues because of their hard cut off to join BY leagues with their hard cutoffs.

9/1 to 7/31 with flex August (I.e. August birthdays bases on actual grade) remains best option. But expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

Again, what you're calling "9/1 to 7/31 with flex August" is the same thing as "SY+60".

Actually, SY-31 with a side of GY. Expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

Right. People will leave SY leagues because of their hard cut off to join BY leagues with their hard cutoffs.

9/1 to 7/31 with flex August (I.e. August birthdays bases on actual grade) remains best option. But expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

Again, what you're calling "9/1 to 7/31 with flex August" is the same thing as "SY+60".

They are not the same thing. I understand why you are trying to say they’re the same because it’s better than SY +60, but they are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would ECNL want to have the continued headache of trap players and have to continue to accommodate and manage them which takes time and money and coaching resources, plus the college recruiting issue when there are still a few kids on the team that are a different grade? Fix the problem completely now and eliminate these lingering issues, using one of the methods discussed here. A blind adherence to an 8/1 or 9/1 date doesn’t facilitate a complete answer to the problem ECNL wants to fix.

You have gone full monorail salesman and should give up the pretense of being unbiased.

You keep describing grade year but ECNL doesn't want grade year, they want school year without exceptions.

Rather than pushing your Scooby Doo plan here "which just might work," you are much, much better off spamming Skip and Christian.

Anymore rubbish and you might need to register as a lobbyist...or Russian bot.

I stopped commenting a while ago.

I'm happy to see that others see the benefits of SY+60 and are advocating for it.

I still prefer BY but SY+60 works as well.

They don't, they aren't.

They are, they do.

You don't because you've already made your mind up and are an ECNL supporter.

No big deal, but when SY continues to cause issues because a hard cutoff was chosen players will flow to BY leagues.

Right. People will leave SY leagues because of their hard cut off to join BY leagues with their hard cutoffs.

9/1 to 7/31 with flex August (I.e. August birthdays bases on actual grade) remains best option. But expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

Again, what you're calling "9/1 to 7/31 with flex August" is the same thing as "SY+60".

Actually, SY-31 with a side of GY. Expect hard cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1.

Yep. But the SY +60 guy/crowd is having trouble understanding that 9/1 +60 reaches back to July 2. Whereas, 9/1 to 7/31 with flex August doesn’t reach back beyond Aug 1.