ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

The 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids playing with their grade approach prohibits August kids from playing down and allows all August kids to play with their grade.

It doesn't get rid of all trapped players because some (very few) school districts start in July.

This is why SY+60 which is basically Aug and July playing with their grade using your terminology. (not just Aug)

SY +60 improperly rewards too many kids in other states where July kids are a grade lower than where they should be under the state’s age cutoff. Very few states start in July.

2 months!

What an amazing complainer.

Wait, did the guy who’s been whining about needing to add 60 days to the SY deadline just tell someone else to stop complaining about 2 months?!?! Wow, talk about a complete lack of self awareness by the SY +60 nut.

2 months, this is what you're worried about.

Exactly. Keep it simple with a set cutoff date of 9/1 or 8/1 and be done with it. No reason for all the fuss over +60 and whatnot.

[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: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

That makes no sense.

They don’t care about playing down by choice, or playing up by choice. They need to pick a date (or three) and minimize / reduce excuses.

The trapped thing, it’s real in that it exists, what degree it matters is debatable. But they’re trying to reduce it to reduce barriers / obstacles - they want kids to have fun. Totally get it.

The +60 garbage is just an attempt to introduce waivers and loopholes to make hyper competitive but low effort families happy. Nobody cares about them, nor should they.

Just because you don't understand Math or a calendar doesn't mean SY+60 is in any way bad.

Nice straw man. Someone responds to point out the idiotic “play down / play up” logic you used with your crack-pot +60 cult and you just change the subject to math. Same argument you’re making now about math can be made for the stupid “SY aligns with college recruiting” crap-line.

The only reason SY is a solid solution is to ease the mental anguish of 8th graders and 12th graders who miss their soccer friends when they’re at school. I’m all for creating a system that give psychological safety to the players when they’re off pitch.

But this +60 stuff is just plain stupid. It’s not necessary, and it’s just a garbage loophole for hyper competitive families that have underwhelming soccer players.

[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:SY + 60? Still don’t know what that means.

Sy+60 means for most players there's a hard cutoff of 9/1 + 12 months and all you need is an eligable birthcert to play.

However if you were born 60 days before 9/1 and can provide birthcert and evidence that you're enrolled in that grade in school even if you're technically up to 60 days older you can play with that age group.

What this does is create one rule that works in all geographies that completely addresses all trapped players. Also because you need to provide proof of enrollment in xyz grade players can't play down a grade.

End result is no trapped players and all players at events and showcases are one grade in school.

So in this system, if you’re looking at September 1, 2012 - August 31, 2013 group, if you are born in Aug or July of 2012, but can prove you’re in the same grade as the Sept 1 - Aug 31 grouping, you’re playing with that group even though you’re a little bit older?

Parents are always working an angle. I don't blame them ... Otherwise they'd be the youngest. Now they'd be the oldest. Sounds like June or May parents need to come up with their "fix" next!

9/1+364

This doesn't really change anything other than allowing hold back / regrade players.

9/1+700 still requires a valid birth cert (which they'd almost certainly have because of +700) and proof that they're enrolled in that grade at school.

The proof that you're enrolled in X grade at school is what prohibits players from playing down + keeps all players on a team a certain grade which has value for scouts.

In general you want to do 9/1+60 or 9/1+90 to completely get rid of trapped players.

It's important to choose +60 or +90 so there's a cutoff to not allow hold backs / regrades or homeschoolers from gaming the system.

Is apparently happening anyway in Lacrosse (older players playing down) because they can't implement a strong enough age verification system. People who look older just say "I'm grad" year (basically +60/+90).

If a league or event was confirming proof of birth cert and proof of enrolled grade in school what you're describing can't happen.

Well, bad age verification what they're complaining about on the lacrosse boards (and what USA lacrosse is saying they're fixing!). But maybe it's just unhinged parents.

Do you know how soccer verifies ages?

The birth certificates you submit, they don’t go any further than the club registrar or team manager.

You see clubs/teams try to sneak in older players on other kids birth certs every now and then. In Latino/Mexican leagues this is a huge problem because sometimes players don't have a birthcert.

Over time and at higher levels this won't work. Usually when leagues catch clubs doing this they get multiple forfeits in their record. If it's pervasive within the club they'll get booted from the league.

Also there will be parents looking for players on other teams not the right age or grade in school. Just report it to the league and they'll investigate + resolve.

All true. That’s not the point. The point is “age verification” is a “trust the team/club” system in soccer too. Fewer cheats in soccer because it’s a larger profile sport. Lacrosse is not. Shoot, go to a lacrosse tournament and 50% of the parents are tailgating and drinking heavily - it’s just a different sporting culture.

I see your point.

But at the highest levels (which is all that people really care about) you wouldn't be able to sneak in on another players birthcert or play down with faked grade enrollment info. Parents would be policing other teams like hawks looking for cheaters.

You might be able to get away with it at travel showcases but why because recruiters would be expecting a certain grad date because of SY+60 and now you'd be off track.

The highest levels don’t give a hoot about birth certificates. You’re talking about ECNL / GA / MLSN…those are NOT the highest level.

And judging mg by this thread, most of the parents here in the “ECNL” thread are aspirational-ECNL parents at best.

[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: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

The 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids playing with their grade approach prohibits August kids from playing down and allows all August kids to play with their grade.

It doesn't get rid of all trapped players because some (very few) school districts start in July.

This is why SY+60 which is basically Aug and July playing with their grade using your terminology. (not just Aug)

July parents, your daydream will end at the end of Feb.

And your nightmare will begin if a single date cutoff is defined for SY.

Because it doesn't address trapped players. Which means the same issues will continue to fester + drive players to BY leagues.

No, they are smarter than you. SY basically means the death of GA as 1st league competitor. ECNL rules the girl college recruiting. That is why USSF pauses it for a year to give GA a chance to come up with a plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

The 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids playing with their grade approach prohibits August kids from playing down and allows all August kids to play with their grade.

It doesn't get rid of all trapped players because some (very few) school districts start in July.

This is why SY+60 which is basically Aug and July playing with their grade using your terminology. (not just Aug)

July parents, your daydream will end at the end of Feb.

And your nightmare will begin if a single date cutoff is defined for SY.

Because it doesn't address trapped players. Which means the same issues will continue to fester + drive players to BY leagues.

No, they are smarter than you. SY basically means the death of GA as 1st league competitor. ECNL rules the girl college recruiting. That is why USSF pauses it for a year to give GA a chance to come up with a plan.

Amen. Plenty of recent Hail Marys being thrown by MLS to push birth year and for an audible to try to scrap of a chunk of the pay to play to funds their academies. Any bets on when MLS gets tired of its shiny toy and moves on from trying to take lunch money from 8 year olds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

The 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids playing with their grade approach prohibits August kids from playing down and allows all August kids to play with their grade.

It doesn't get rid of all trapped players because some (very few) school districts start in July.

This is why SY+60 which is basically Aug and July playing with their grade using your terminology. (not just Aug)

July parents, your daydream will end at the end of Feb.

And your nightmare will begin if a single date cutoff is defined for SY.

Because it doesn't address trapped players. Which means the same issues will continue to fester + drive players to BY leagues.

No, they are smarter than you. SY basically means the death of GA as 1st league competitor. ECNL rules the girl college recruiting. That is why USSF pauses it for a year to give GA a chance to come up with a plan.

Amen. Plenty of recent Hail Marys being thrown by MLS to push birth year and for an audible to try to scrap of a chunk of the pay to play to funds their academies. Any bets on when MLS gets tired of its shiny toy and moves on from trying to take lunch money from 8 year olds?

MLSN is trying so hard to stop the bleeding, but I bet ECNL will be one step ahead. We will get some good transition plan next month. I will not waste my time to argue the worthy of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why not 9/30 or 10/1 +60? Schools cut offs are later than 9/1.

Leagues are trying to stick with 9/1 because they don't want kids a grade up in school playing down a grade in SY.

But you can make 9/1 any date if you have a proof of enrolled grade requirement. This would keep kids a grade up from playing a grade down.

The 9/1 to 7/31 with August kids playing with their grade approach prohibits August kids from playing down and allows all August kids to play with their grade.

It doesn't get rid of all trapped players because some (very few) school districts start in July.

This is why SY+60 which is basically Aug and July playing with their grade using your terminology. (not just Aug)

July parents, your daydream will end at the end of Feb.

And your nightmare will begin if a single date cutoff is defined for SY.

Because it doesn't address trapped players. Which means the same issues will continue to fester + drive players to BY leagues.

No, they are smarter than you. SY basically means the death of GA as 1st league competitor. ECNL rules the girl college recruiting. That is why USSF pauses it for a year to give GA a chance to come up with a plan.

No… not at all true about SY, GA or the pause.

GA will probably be better off with BY, but SY wouldn’t hurt them either

USSF pressed pause because nobody really knew what ECNL and Club had been doing behind the scenes including most of the ECNL clubs. One club that is tied to both a honcho at US Club and the president of USSF was so blind sided they started having coaching issue with some long term coaches threatening to leave and one new hire from Kickers walking off the job because it blew months of planning and work. The ECNL CLUBS ASKED FOR THE PAUSE TOO.

The only BSD in youth “elite” youth soccer is MLS. So if any league had pull to “pause” it would have been MLS/MLSN. ECNL had to do back room committee shenanigans to maneuver this outcome, they don’t even have enough pull to get the whole enchilada, they only got USSF to add optionality to the age cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Only +60 guy could bring the BY and SY supporters together.

Kudos for an idea so dumb it united everyone against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only +60 guy could bring the BY and SY supporters together.

Kudos for an idea so dumb it united everyone against it.

Moronic like a Jardiance commercial. Lotta singing and dancing about nothing and it just wouldn't stop.

[Anonymous]

I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

I hope they do implement a single date SY cutoff. Just to watch how it blows up when it doesn't work across different states and how the trapped player people continue complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

I hope they do implement a single date SY cutoff. Just to watch how it blows up when it doesn't work across different states and how the trapped player people continue complaining.

Don't argue with the blockheads. Ignorant and aggressive is a bad combo when making business decisions that potentially affect 1000s of players.

SY+60 or whatever you want to call it is a very good idea. Hopefully it makes it's way to the decision makers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

I hope they do implement a single date SY cutoff. Just to watch how it blows up when it doesn't work across different states and how the trapped player people continue complaining.

Don't argue with the blockheads. Ignorant and aggressive is a bad combo when making business decisions that potentially affect 1000s of players.

SY+60 or whatever you want to call it is a very good idea. Hopefully it makes it's way to the decision makers.

It's going to be in-between. States will pick 12-month cutoffs around their own school years. If there's a SY+60, it's for tournaments/regional leagues, so perhaps ECNL. That said, adding these age carve-outs, all the lacrosse people say welcome to a definite increase to older kids (cheating) playing down all in the name of winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

I hope they do implement a single date SY cutoff. Just to watch how it blows up when it doesn't work across different states and how the trapped player people continue complaining.

Don't argue with the blockheads. Ignorant and aggressive is a bad combo when making business decisions that potentially affect 1000s of players.

SY+60 or whatever you want to call it is a very good idea. Hopefully it makes it's way to the decision makers.

It's going to be in-between. States will pick 12-month cutoffs around their own school years. If there's a SY+60, it's for tournaments/regional leagues, so perhaps ECNL. That said, adding these age carve-outs, all the lacrosse people say welcome to a definite increase to older kids (cheating) playing down all in the name of winning.

Is it cheating now when teams are stacked with Jan - March kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to read this page daily, then every other day, now I can only skim to find the pages school year +60 dude didn’t dominate the conversation. See you in 6 weeks after the official announcenent. Then RIP SY+ dude when a solid cutoff of 9/1-8/31 is announced

I hope they do implement a single date SY cutoff. Just to watch how it blows up when it doesn't work across different states and how the trapped player people continue complaining.

Don't argue with the blockheads. Ignorant and aggressive is a bad combo when making business decisions that potentially affect 1000s of players.

SY+60 or whatever you want to call it is a very good idea. Hopefully it makes it's way to the decision makers.

It's going to be in-between. States will pick 12-month cutoffs around their own school years. If there's a SY+60, it's for tournaments/regional leagues, so perhaps ECNL. That said, adding these age carve-outs, all the lacrosse people say welcome to a definite increase to older kids (cheating) playing down all in the name of winning.

Is it cheating now when teams are stacked with Jan - March kids?

It is only cheating if your kid is not in the advantaged group.