ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

This sounds like grade year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's one thing to stack the oldest in a 12-month window, it's quite another to allow more of a 15-month window with wiggle room to go even higher.

That's why I keep calling it SY+60.

If you put the 2 month accommodation into the name it makes it hard to slippery slope it into SY+120. Especially after its written down and used in literature/documentation.

This also keeps the GY holdback/regrades out.

Age verfication is harder than you think -- just ask lacrosse.

You'd only need grade verification for 9/1 to 7/1 birthdays.

Everyone else would only need a birthcert.

The U.S. does not have a system for grade verification, clubs wouldn't want to be part of verification, they (and parents) wouldn't want other clubs cheating the system, a 14 month age range will be lobbied to become a 15 month age range and finally, it's not happening, never was happening and hasn't been suggested by anyone in the to skirt age rules that don't even exist yet. This is why they came up with 3 primary options, By, Sept 1 and Aug 1.

They don't want a wild west of random waivers to try to jam as many older players in an age range as possible. In fact, in effort to avoid having unnecessary older players in an age range, Sept 1 is getting more buzz than Aug 1.

SY while allowing 2 months of extra kids if they are in the grade below them is a nonstarter no matter what confusing label is used to describe it.

Honestly, if you feel this strong about it, you need to volunteer to help clubs/leagues more. They will accept free labor not random unsolicited advice from uninformed people off the street.

You seem to know a lot about this wonder why?

I'm providing info to the correct people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

This sounds like grade year.

It's a 12 month window with 2 months on top if you can prove that youre in X grade.

Basically the same thing we have now but with a 2 month variable to capture all trapped players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's one thing to stack the oldest in a 12-month window, it's quite another to allow more of a 15-month window with wiggle room to go even higher.

That's why I keep calling it SY+60.

If you put the 2 month accommodation into the name it makes it hard to slippery slope it into SY+120. Especially after its written down and used in literature/documentation.

This also keeps the GY holdback/regrades out.

Age verfication is harder than you think -- just ask lacrosse.

You'd only need grade verification for 9/1 to 7/1 birthdays.

Everyone else would only need a birthcert.

The U.S. does not have a system for grade verification, clubs wouldn't want to be part of verification, they (and parents) wouldn't want other clubs cheating the system, a 14 month age range will be lobbied to become a 15 month age range and finally, it's not happening, never was happening and hasn't been suggested by anyone in the to skirt age rules that don't even exist yet. This is why they came up with 3 primary options, By, Sept 1 and Aug 1.

They don't want a wild west of random waivers to try to jam as many older players in an age range as possible. In fact, in effort to avoid having unnecessary older players in an age range, Sept 1 is getting more buzz than Aug 1.

SY while allowing 2 months of extra kids if they are in the grade below them is a nonstarter no matter what confusing label is used to describe it.

Honestly, if you feel this strong about it, you need to volunteer to help clubs/leagues more. They will accept free labor not random unsolicited advice from uninformed people off the street.

Just do BY if you don't want to address the trapped player situation entirely.

In your world there would be less trapped players but the few trapped players that exist would be double screwed over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

This sounds like grade year.

Except it’s not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

This sounds like grade year.

It's a 12 month window with 2 months on top if you can prove that youre in X grade.

Basically the same thing we have now but with a 2 month variable to capture all trapped players.

In the USSF survey, they weren't considering grade year or grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

This sounds like grade year.

It's a 12 month window with 2 months on top if you can prove that youre in X grade.

Basically the same thing we have now but with a 2 month variable to capture all trapped players.

In the USSF survey, they weren't considering grade year or grades.

Right - they were considering school year. Same thing.

[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 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.

It's one thing to stack the oldest in a 12-month window, it's quite another to allow more of a 15-month window with wiggle room to go even higher.

That's why I keep calling it SY+60.

If you put the 2 month accommodation into the name it makes it hard to slippery slope it into SY+120. Especially after its written down and used in literature/documentation.

This also keeps the GY holdback/regrades out.

Age verfication is harder than you think -- just ask lacrosse.

You'd only need grade verification for 9/1 to 7/1 birthdays.

Everyone else would only need a birthcert.

The U.S. does not have a system for grade verification, clubs wouldn't want to be part of verification, they (and parents) wouldn't want other clubs cheating the system, a 14 month age range will be lobbied to become a 15 month age range and finally, it's not happening, never was happening and hasn't been suggested by anyone in the to skirt age rules that don't even exist yet. This is why they came up with 3 primary options, By, Sept 1 and Aug 1.

They don't want a wild west of random waivers to try to jam as many older players in an age range as possible. In fact, in effort to avoid having unnecessary older players in an age range, Sept 1 is getting more buzz than Aug 1.

SY while allowing 2 months of extra kids if they are in the grade below them is a nonstarter no matter what confusing label is used to describe it.

Honestly, if you feel this strong about it, you need to volunteer to help clubs/leagues more. They will accept free labor not random unsolicited advice from uninformed people off the street.

You seem to know a lot about this wonder why?

I'm providing info to the correct people.

Yeah, not an insider. Random parent but I have followed the public positions of the players in the age cutoff change game so I don't entertain unrealistic expectations.

No way anyone of relevance has stayed with this thread. Even the lead of DCUM is massively confused as to why this was a thing and even more confused as to why this is still a thing. Last week, J Steele, "Yesterday's most active thread was, believe it or not, the thread about the ECNL soccer league changing its age brackets. I didn't check to see what provoked this burst of interest so that will remain a mystery."

He didn't want to spend the 3 minutes to find out that the thread was hijacked by a science fiction lunatic who's main goal is to suck the oxygen out of the room.

The guy making money off of the site completely lost interest. Tells you a lot about your inane rabbit hole of a kernel of an idea. When they tell you in your next office brainstorming office meeting that there are no dumb ideas do not believe them.

[Anonymous]

Confirming school grade would not be hard to setup or administer.

1. Let clubs review other club players birth cert and grade verification on request. (This would already be screenshot uploaded to a website)

2. Give clubs 3 red flags to call out other clubs specific players for cheating. If a flag is raised the league will confirm if correct. If correct the club cheating is punished. The club that called the red flag gets their red flag back to.

The scenario defined above requires minimal effort from a league presepective.

Also keep in mind with SY+60 you have to be born within a specific range 7/1 to 9/1 (the next year) so true redshirt playing down isn't possible. Yes players born in the 2 month grade confirmation required period might cheat but even if they do they're the same age as other players. Just a grade difference.

[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 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.

It's one thing to stack the oldest in a 12-month window, it's quite another to allow more of a 15-month window with wiggle room to go even higher.

That's why I keep calling it SY+60.

If you put the 2 month accommodation into the name it makes it hard to slippery slope it into SY+120. Especially after its written down and used in literature/documentation.

This also keeps the GY holdback/regrades out.

Age verfication is harder than you think -- just ask lacrosse.

You'd only need grade verification for 9/1 to 7/1 birthdays.

Everyone else would only need a birthcert.

The U.S. does not have a system for grade verification, clubs wouldn't want to be part of verification, they (and parents) wouldn't want other clubs cheating the system, a 14 month age range will be lobbied to become a 15 month age range and finally, it's not happening, never was happening and hasn't been suggested by anyone in the to skirt age rules that don't even exist yet. This is why they came up with 3 primary options, By, Sept 1 and Aug 1.

They don't want a wild west of random waivers to try to jam as many older players in an age range as possible. In fact, in effort to avoid having unnecessary older players in an age range, Sept 1 is getting more buzz than Aug 1.

SY while allowing 2 months of extra kids if they are in the grade below them is a nonstarter no matter what confusing label is used to describe it.

Honestly, if you feel this strong about it, you need to volunteer to help clubs/leagues more. They will accept free labor not random unsolicited advice from uninformed people off the street.

Just do BY if you don't want to address the trapped player situation entirely.

In your world there would be less trapped players but the few trapped players that exist would be double screwed over.

Two wrong assumptions here; the only goal into going to school year is trapped players and the main goal is to completely eliminate trapped players. Only going pure grade year (not currently under debate) will eliminate trapped players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

In this scenario, about 1 in 6 players would be playing down (meaning outside their prescribed 12 month age range) but to take advantage of size and speed, there would probably be like 1 in 4 players on top teams playing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Confirming school grade would not be hard to setup or administer.

1. Let clubs review other club players birth cert and grade verification on request. (This would already be screenshot uploaded to a website)

2. Give clubs 3 red flags to call out other clubs specific players for cheating. If a flag is raised the league will confirm if correct. If correct the club cheating is punished. The club that called the red flag gets their red flag back to.

The scenario defined above requires minimal effort from a league presepective.

Also keep in mind with SY+60 you have to be born within a specific range 7/1 to 9/1 (the next year) so true redshirt playing down isn't possible. Yes players born in the 2 month grade confirmation required period might cheat but even if they do they're the same age as other players. Just a grade difference.

That is way to hard for the clubs that I am familiar with. Going with a state's school year dates is much easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

In this scenario, about 1 in 6 players would be playing down (meaning outside their prescribed 12 month age range) but to take advantage of size and speed, there would probably be like 1 in 4 players on top teams playing down.

Even if there was cheating going on they'd be playing down an enrolled grade but the same age as other players.

So yes cheating but not the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

So funny that people want to jerymander the bearth year declination now that they wont be the oldest.

Soccer parents are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm well aware of how sneaky and annoying the regraders/homeschoolers can be in their efforts to let their kid cheat and play down.

With SY+60
-Players born 7/1-9/1 need to provide a birthcert and proof of grade enrolled.
- Players born 9/1-71 only need a birthcert.

It would be really hard to play down with above in place. The only situation where you might hear about playing down a grade is if a player started in a district whos school started early. Then they moved to a district that started late. Then the parents held them back in the new district. But even in this crazy edge case the player would be no more than 2 months older than other players and still technically within the official eligibility window.

In this scenario, about 1 in 6 players would be playing down (meaning outside their prescribed 12 month age range) but to take advantage of size and speed, there would probably be like 1 in 4 players on top teams playing down.

Even if there was cheating going on they'd be playing down an enrolled grade but the same age as other players.

So yes cheating but not the end of the world.

This idea is doa because having top teams with about a quarter of overage players will create a mob of parents demanding to stop the legalized cheating.