ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering, because I really have no clue, but would it be possible for ECNL to allow a waiver for up to two Q4 players to play down next year?

For example, two 2011's born Oct, Nov, or Dec rostered on the 2012's.

The rationale would be to ease in the transition of the 2026 BY --> SY change.

Would it even be sensible? I ask because I my son's age group has 5 of 16 that are SEP-DEC birth dates. That is a lot of roster changing.

SY+60 crazy person is the flat out reason we can't have nice things.

Given an inch, it will start the lobbying for the agrived parties and those that feel they should get theirs. Allowing only 2 2011's to play down the full year jams up the 2012 teams so you would need to do it for all ages. Then is 2 enough? What about the other 3?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for 3-5 Q4 kids playing down next year in ECNL for each age group. It being only for one year and as a step towards 2026, maybe it happens but the only suggestions that I have seen are on this forum which basically means as an idea it doesn't exist.

SY+60 guy shows that leagues are have a valid point to say no to any special exceptions for parents that scream the loudest and most often.

The status quo (that doesn't work) are the reason you can't have nice things.

The SY+60 guys solution addresses all trapped players and doesn't allow playing down which means on the field during games every player would be in the same grade.

And it works when different states play each other.

SY by itself continues to have trapped players and not everyone one the field is the same grade.

The plus 60 part is by definition playing down. If getting rid of all trapped players is the goal, then soccer will go grade year.

I don't think you know what Grade Year means.

Grade year is anyone in a certain grade can play on that grade team. This includes students that have been held back 3x and are in the same grade as their classmates but 2-3 years older.

[Anonymous]

Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering, because I really have no clue, but would it be possible for ECNL to allow a waiver for up to two Q4 players to play down next year?

For example, two 2011's born Oct, Nov, or Dec rostered on the 2012's.

The rationale would be to ease in the transition of the 2026 BY --> SY change.

Would it even be sensible? I ask because I my son's age group has 5 of 16 that are SEP-DEC birth dates. That is a lot of roster changing.

SY+60 crazy person is the flat out reason we can't have nice things.

Given an inch, it will start the lobbying for the agrived parties and those that feel they should get theirs. Allowing only 2 2011's to play down the full year jams up the 2012 teams so you would need to do it for all ages. Then is 2 enough? What about the other 3?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for 3-5 Q4 kids playing down next year in ECNL for each age group. It being only for one year and as a step towards 2026, maybe it happens but the only suggestions that I have seen are on this forum which basically means as an idea it doesn't exist.

SY+60 guy shows that leagues are have a valid point to say no to any special exceptions for parents that scream the loudest and most often.

The status quo (that doesn't work) are the reason you can't have nice things.

The SY+60 guys solution addresses all trapped players and doesn't allow playing down which means on the field during games every player would be in the same grade.

And it works when different states play each other.

SY by itself continues to have trapped players and not everyone one the field is the same grade.

The plus 60 part is by definition playing down. If getting rid of all trapped players is the goal, then soccer will go grade year.

I don't think you know what Grade Year means.

Grade year is anyone in a certain grade can play on that grade team. This includes students that have been held back 3x and are in the same grade as their classmates but 2-3 years older.

I do and I recognize that kids soccer leagues don't want grade year and are going to go with a continuous 12 month period and call BS on any other schneigans and points of flare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

Not me, but good on you for doing that. Hopefully it will be something they at least consider if their true aim is a school/seasonal year grouping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

I think the phase to give your 2 cents to USSF is over. And it’s clear they got a lot of different opinions which is why they threw their hands up and said “leagues, you figure it out.” The poster is talking about reaching out to the leagues/directors who still have to come up with what they’re going to do given they have “reasonable flexibility” to set their own parameters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

Do people still think we’ll have BY leagues in 5 years?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

Do people still think we’ll have BY leagues in 5 years?!

Yes, MLS will stay BY and everyone else will be BY or SY+60

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already know what they are going to do at this point about age spans. They haven’t gotten this far and don’t know. So no amount of emailing them to allow this or that is going to matter.

I don't think they do. The US Youth Soccer guy hinted that they would be creating different rules to accommodate different districts/states. This will never work because districts change start dates all the time. Also it would be impossible to keep track of all the different states and school start dates to maintain up to date rules.

That is for local league. For national league, it can only have one cutoff date with no waivers. And ECNL CEO already hinted 9/1. I will bet my money on it.

We'll see, 9/1 + 60 gets rid of ALL complaints from parents + trapped players.

9/1 by itself still has trapped players depending on the state/district. Which means they'll still have a group of complaining parents.

ECNL will not give a f**k on those parents whose kids are marginal and can only play down to join NL. They will not bring value to ECNL.

Just reread your comment and I don't think you understand how 9/1 + 60 would work.

With 9/1 + 60 players born from 9/1 to 9/1 that year only need to show a birth cert to register to play.

If you were born 60 days before 9/1 you can play with your grade by providing a birth cert and proof of school enrollment at X grade.

All others that are a year older in school but are born 60 days before 9/1 won't be able to play down. (Because they're not in the correct grade in school)

Make sense? Nobody is playing down + all trapped players are addressed.

Scouts would only see one grade playing on the field during showcases.

They will go to a hard cutoff date if 9/1. If I remember right during the last podcast (I know, I know) they brought up percentage of players effected by saying 9/1 will be effect the least amount of players as opposed to 8/1. I would say they have thought it through and are going with a hard date. They don’t want to mess with +30-60 when they can just set the date.

The reason why I know 9/1 + 60 will happen is because it addresses all kinds of issues + makes things easier for clubs to implement SY.

Go listen to it then
They are just trying to minimize the trap player and never said eliminate the trap player. If you do the + 60 might as well go to a 14 month span….they are not going to do that.

You don't want to do this because it allows players to play down a grade in school.

9/1 + 60 doesn't allow (aug july) players who started school early and are a grade ahead to play down with the grade they should be in school.

+ 60 picks up kids born 60 days BEFORE the cutofff (9/1), right? Doesn’t that address kids who started school late (or have a school cutoff (8/1) that is earlier than the soccer cutoff (9/1))? I’m asking about players who are born AFTER the soccer cutoff. 9/1 cutoff for school and soccer says a Sept 2012 kid is u12 and 6th grade (the oldest in her class). But if that kid started school one year early, she’s actually in 7th grade (the youngest in her class) and her teammates are in 6th grade. +60 doesn’t address that, right?

Correct, 9/1 + 60 does not allow kids that are older (traditionally) than their grade in school to "play down" with their grade in school.

Put more bluntly if your kid is a "hold back / regrade" 9/1 + 60 won't let them play with the grade they're in at school.They"ll have to play with the grade up.

So the 9/1 + 60 is basically what USA Lacrosse has done, but limits it to two months as oppose to 3? You have a 9/1 soccer cutoff, but if you’re within 60 days of the cutoff (July and August months) then you can play with your graduation year. So if you’re born Aug 3, 2012, but a 2031 grad as opposed to a 2030 grad since you started late, then you’d play with your grad year since you’re within 60 days from the cutoff, right?

Kind of..

It also makes sure players who are of age but not in the correct grade can't play down.

Different opinion. 9/1+60 is stupid.

Everyone except you knows that you're embarrassing yourself.

Or it’s stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Anytime you give one subset an option you don’t give the others, it just screws up the system and lends itself to abuse.

Would 1/1+60 make sense? No.

9/1+60 only makes marginal sense because SY isn’t a clean date. But it’s not workable nationally, and it’s not workable competitively.

But it takes a stupid issue, age cutoffs, and just ups the complication, which makes it dumber than the underlying issue.

Welcome to a gigantic duh...

As I've said before I prefer BY because it's easier for clubs to implement + makes more sense.

I've only included 9/1 + 60 detail because it's the only way to implement SY + make it work for everyone involved.

Having a mid July kid and suggesting SY+60 is saying I want to be at the front of the line. Preferring BY over SY in this instance is saying I prefer to be in the middle of the line rather than the back. Just generic selfishness cloaked in pretend empathy.

Believe it or not but my kid is a trapped player and I still prefer BY. From a personal perspective this allows them to "play up" at a more challenging level.

But I would consider switching to a SY+60 league. SY+60 isn't that bad if it completely addressesed all trapped players. It would be nice to go to a tournament and everyone on the field was one grade.

It would be annoying switching to SY to address trapped players and there were still trapped players.

I think you give too much credit to "grades". They can vary especially by district and even more so, between public and private. That's why soccer really should stick to AGE.

SY+60 has an age window and grade requirements.

On paper, perhaps -- although it's not really been documented as an option in this youth soccer discussion anywhere, except as examples from other sports -- where they STRUGGLE with implementation/cheating.

SY+60 eligibility window is 14 months

Only players born between 7/1 and 9/1 would need to provide an additional proof of grade enrolled in school.

You might get a couple of players lieing about their grade in school. But they would still need to be in the 14 month eligibility window. Which means even though they're cheating they're also the same age as other players from different states. Annoying but not the end of the world + would be easy to address. Definately not GY though.

As mentioned several pages back, SY +60 rewards parents that held their July kid back or enrolled them late in states where the school cutoff is in August or September (almost all states). SY +60 guy doesn’t realize/understand/get that part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

Do people still think we’ll have BY leagues in 5 years?!

Those vested in the system, parents of Q1 and Q2, probably do. But the drive towards college scouting along with the drive to stay school year from the younger ages will most likely push everyone towards school year over the next 5 few years, MLS Next included. Other than MLS Next, most leagues have avoided allowing kids to play down outside of the 12 month age period so no reason to think that would change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious - is anyone who is advocating for 9/1 + 60, 9/1 to 7/31 plus flex August to play with enrolled grade, etc, communicating this to any of the decisionmakers at the governing bodies? I am emailing them but are others? Just chatting here isn’t likely to achieve anything.

That phase is over. The USSF did a survey to get this kind of input and summarized it in their announcement to rescind the birth year mandate for 2026.

Do people still think we’ll have BY leagues in 5 years?!

Yes, MLS will stay BY and everyone else will be BY or SY+60

Nothing like drinking your own Kool aid.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already know what they are going to do at this point about age spans. They haven’t gotten this far and don’t know. So no amount of emailing them to allow this or that is going to matter.

I don't think they do. The US Youth Soccer guy hinted that they would be creating different rules to accommodate different districts/states. This will never work because districts change start dates all the time. Also it would be impossible to keep track of all the different states and school start dates to maintain up to date rules.

That is for local league. For national league, it can only have one cutoff date with no waivers. And ECNL CEO already hinted 9/1. I will bet my money on it.

We'll see, 9/1 + 60 gets rid of ALL complaints from parents + trapped players.

9/1 by itself still has trapped players depending on the state/district. Which means they'll still have a group of complaining parents.

ECNL will not give a f**k on those parents whose kids are marginal and can only play down to join NL. They will not bring value to ECNL.

Just reread your comment and I don't think you understand how 9/1 + 60 would work.

With 9/1 + 60 players born from 9/1 to 9/1 that year only need to show a birth cert to register to play.

If you were born 60 days before 9/1 you can play with your grade by providing a birth cert and proof of school enrollment at X grade.

All others that are a year older in school but are born 60 days before 9/1 won't be able to play down. (Because they're not in the correct grade in school)

Make sense? Nobody is playing down + all trapped players are addressed.

Scouts would only see one grade playing on the field during showcases.

They will go to a hard cutoff date if 9/1. If I remember right during the last podcast (I know, I know) they brought up percentage of players effected by saying 9/1 will be effect the least amount of players as opposed to 8/1. I would say they have thought it through and are going with a hard date. They don’t want to mess with +30-60 when they can just set the date.

The reason why I know 9/1 + 60 will happen is because it addresses all kinds of issues + makes things easier for clubs to implement SY.

Go listen to it then
They are just trying to minimize the trap player and never said eliminate the trap player. If you do the + 60 might as well go to a 14 month span….they are not going to do that.

You don't want to do this because it allows players to play down a grade in school.

9/1 + 60 doesn't allow (aug july) players who started school early and are a grade ahead to play down with the grade they should be in school.

+ 60 picks up kids born 60 days BEFORE the cutofff (9/1), right? Doesn’t that address kids who started school late (or have a school cutoff (8/1) that is earlier than the soccer cutoff (9/1))? I’m asking about players who are born AFTER the soccer cutoff. 9/1 cutoff for school and soccer says a Sept 2012 kid is u12 and 6th grade (the oldest in her class). But if that kid started school one year early, she’s actually in 7th grade (the youngest in her class) and her teammates are in 6th grade. +60 doesn’t address that, right?

Correct, 9/1 + 60 does not allow kids that are older (traditionally) than their grade in school to "play down" with their grade in school.

Put more bluntly if your kid is a "hold back / regrade" 9/1 + 60 won't let them play with the grade they're in at school.They"ll have to play with the grade up.

So the 9/1 + 60 is basically what USA Lacrosse has done, but limits it to two months as oppose to 3? You have a 9/1 soccer cutoff, but if you’re within 60 days of the cutoff (July and August months) then you can play with your graduation year. So if you’re born Aug 3, 2012, but a 2031 grad as opposed to a 2030 grad since you started late, then you’d play with your grad year since you’re within 60 days from the cutoff, right?

Kind of..

It also makes sure players who are of age but not in the correct grade can't play down.

Different opinion. 9/1+60 is stupid.

Everyone except you knows that you're embarrassing yourself.

Or it’s stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Anytime you give one subset an option you don’t give the others, it just screws up the system and lends itself to abuse.

Would 1/1+60 make sense? No.

9/1+60 only makes marginal sense because SY isn’t a clean date. But it’s not workable nationally, and it’s not workable competitively.

But it takes a stupid issue, age cutoffs, and just ups the complication, which makes it dumber than the underlying issue.

Welcome to a gigantic duh...

As I've said before I prefer BY because it's easier for clubs to implement + makes more sense.

I've only included 9/1 + 60 detail because it's the only way to implement SY + make it work for everyone involved.

Having a mid July kid and suggesting SY+60 is saying I want to be at the front of the line. Preferring BY over SY in this instance is saying I prefer to be in the middle of the line rather than the back. Just generic selfishness cloaked in pretend empathy.

Believe it or not but my kid is a trapped player and I still prefer BY. From a personal perspective this allows them to "play up" at a more challenging level.

But I would consider switching to a SY+60 league. SY+60 isn't that bad if it completely addressesed all trapped players. It would be nice to go to a tournament and everyone on the field was one grade.

It would be annoying switching to SY to address trapped players and there were still trapped players.

I think you give too much credit to "grades". They can vary especially by district and even more so, between public and private. That's why soccer really should stick to AGE.

SY+60 has an age window and grade requirements.

On paper, perhaps -- although it's not really been documented as an option in this youth soccer discussion anywhere, except as examples from other sports -- where they STRUGGLE with implementation/cheating.

SY+60 eligibility window is 14 months

Only players born between 7/1 and 9/1 would need to provide an additional proof of grade enrolled in school.

You might get a couple of players lieing about their grade in school. But they would still need to be in the 14 month eligibility window. Which means even though they're cheating they're also the same age as other players from different states. Annoying but not the end of the world + would be easy to address. Definately not GY though.

As mentioned several pages back, SY +60 rewards parents that held their July kid back or enrolled them late in states where the school cutoff is in August or September (almost all states). SY +60 guy doesn’t realize/understand/get that part.

I understand completely and there's states who's cutoff is in July.

I'm happy trading 2 months of potential RAE for completely eliminating all trapped players.

It's not that big of a deal, 2 months will not change anything. The only time 2 months would come into play is when different states with different cutoff dates would play each other. And again it's 2 months!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already know what they are going to do at this point about age spans. They haven’t gotten this far and don’t know. So no amount of emailing them to allow this or that is going to matter.

I don't think they do. The US Youth Soccer guy hinted that they would be creating different rules to accommodate different districts/states. This will never work because districts change start dates all the time. Also it would be impossible to keep track of all the different states and school start dates to maintain up to date rules.

That is for local league. For national league, it can only have one cutoff date with no waivers. And ECNL CEO already hinted 9/1. I will bet my money on it.

We'll see, 9/1 + 60 gets rid of ALL complaints from parents + trapped players.

9/1 by itself still has trapped players depending on the state/district. Which means they'll still have a group of complaining parents.

ECNL will not give a f**k on those parents whose kids are marginal and can only play down to join NL. They will not bring value to ECNL.

Just reread your comment and I don't think you understand how 9/1 + 60 would work.

With 9/1 + 60 players born from 9/1 to 9/1 that year only need to show a birth cert to register to play.

If you were born 60 days before 9/1 you can play with your grade by providing a birth cert and proof of school enrollment at X grade.

All others that are a year older in school but are born 60 days before 9/1 won't be able to play down. (Because they're not in the correct grade in school)

Make sense? Nobody is playing down + all trapped players are addressed.

Scouts would only see one grade playing on the field during showcases.

They will go to a hard cutoff date if 9/1. If I remember right during the last podcast (I know, I know) they brought up percentage of players effected by saying 9/1 will be effect the least amount of players as opposed to 8/1. I would say they have thought it through and are going with a hard date. They don’t want to mess with +30-60 when they can just set the date.

The reason why I know 9/1 + 60 will happen is because it addresses all kinds of issues + makes things easier for clubs to implement SY.

Go listen to it then
They are just trying to minimize the trap player and never said eliminate the trap player. If you do the + 60 might as well go to a 14 month span….they are not going to do that.

You don't want to do this because it allows players to play down a grade in school.

9/1 + 60 doesn't allow (aug july) players who started school early and are a grade ahead to play down with the grade they should be in school.

+ 60 picks up kids born 60 days BEFORE the cutofff (9/1), right? Doesn’t that address kids who started school late (or have a school cutoff (8/1) that is earlier than the soccer cutoff (9/1))? I’m asking about players who are born AFTER the soccer cutoff. 9/1 cutoff for school and soccer says a Sept 2012 kid is u12 and 6th grade (the oldest in her class). But if that kid started school one year early, she’s actually in 7th grade (the youngest in her class) and her teammates are in 6th grade. +60 doesn’t address that, right?

Correct, 9/1 + 60 does not allow kids that are older (traditionally) than their grade in school to "play down" with their grade in school.

Put more bluntly if your kid is a "hold back / regrade" 9/1 + 60 won't let them play with the grade they're in at school.They"ll have to play with the grade up.

So the 9/1 + 60 is basically what USA Lacrosse has done, but limits it to two months as oppose to 3? You have a 9/1 soccer cutoff, but if you’re within 60 days of the cutoff (July and August months) then you can play with your graduation year. So if you’re born Aug 3, 2012, but a 2031 grad as opposed to a 2030 grad since you started late, then you’d play with your grad year since you’re within 60 days from the cutoff, right?

Kind of..

It also makes sure players who are of age but not in the correct grade can't play down.

Different opinion. 9/1+60 is stupid.

Everyone except you knows that you're embarrassing yourself.

Or it’s stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Anytime you give one subset an option you don’t give the others, it just screws up the system and lends itself to abuse.

Would 1/1+60 make sense? No.

9/1+60 only makes marginal sense because SY isn’t a clean date. But it’s not workable nationally, and it’s not workable competitively.

But it takes a stupid issue, age cutoffs, and just ups the complication, which makes it dumber than the underlying issue.

Welcome to a gigantic duh...

As I've said before I prefer BY because it's easier for clubs to implement + makes more sense.

I've only included 9/1 + 60 detail because it's the only way to implement SY + make it work for everyone involved.

Having a mid July kid and suggesting SY+60 is saying I want to be at the front of the line. Preferring BY over SY in this instance is saying I prefer to be in the middle of the line rather than the back. Just generic selfishness cloaked in pretend empathy.

Believe it or not but my kid is a trapped player and I still prefer BY. From a personal perspective this allows them to "play up" at a more challenging level.

But I would consider switching to a SY+60 league. SY+60 isn't that bad if it completely addressesed all trapped players. It would be nice to go to a tournament and everyone on the field was one grade.

It would be annoying switching to SY to address trapped players and there were still trapped players.

I think you give too much credit to "grades". They can vary especially by district and even more so, between public and private. That's why soccer really should stick to AGE.

SY+60 has an age window and grade requirements.

On paper, perhaps -- although it's not really been documented as an option in this youth soccer discussion anywhere, except as examples from other sports -- where they STRUGGLE with implementation/cheating.

SY+60 eligibility window is 14 months

Only players born between 7/1 and 9/1 would need to provide an additional proof of grade enrolled in school.

You might get a couple of players lieing about their grade in school. But they would still need to be in the 14 month eligibility window. Which means even though they're cheating they're also the same age as other players from different states. Annoying but not the end of the world + would be easy to address. Definately not GY though.

As mentioned several pages back, SY +60 rewards parents that held their July kid back or enrolled them late in states where the school cutoff is in August or September (almost all states). SY +60 guy doesn’t realize/understand/get that part.

What’s your definition of an award in this scenario? Bring the “oldest”? There will always be an oldest and youngest no matter what. The goal is to align as many kids within their school year that works across an entire country.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already know what they are going to do at this point about age spans. They haven’t gotten this far and don’t know. So no amount of emailing them to allow this or that is going to matter.

I don't think they do. The US Youth Soccer guy hinted that they would be creating different rules to accommodate different districts/states. This will never work because districts change start dates all the time. Also it would be impossible to keep track of all the different states and school start dates to maintain up to date rules.

That is for local league. For national league, it can only have one cutoff date with no waivers. And ECNL CEO already hinted 9/1. I will bet my money on it.

We'll see, 9/1 + 60 gets rid of ALL complaints from parents + trapped players.

9/1 by itself still has trapped players depending on the state/district. Which means they'll still have a group of complaining parents.

ECNL will not give a f**k on those parents whose kids are marginal and can only play down to join NL. They will not bring value to ECNL.

Just reread your comment and I don't think you understand how 9/1 + 60 would work.

With 9/1 + 60 players born from 9/1 to 9/1 that year only need to show a birth cert to register to play.

If you were born 60 days before 9/1 you can play with your grade by providing a birth cert and proof of school enrollment at X grade.

All others that are a year older in school but are born 60 days before 9/1 won't be able to play down. (Because they're not in the correct grade in school)

Make sense? Nobody is playing down + all trapped players are addressed.

Scouts would only see one grade playing on the field during showcases.

They will go to a hard cutoff date if 9/1. If I remember right during the last podcast (I know, I know) they brought up percentage of players effected by saying 9/1 will be effect the least amount of players as opposed to 8/1. I would say they have thought it through and are going with a hard date. They don’t want to mess with +30-60 when they can just set the date.

The reason why I know 9/1 + 60 will happen is because it addresses all kinds of issues + makes things easier for clubs to implement SY.

Go listen to it then
They are just trying to minimize the trap player and never said eliminate the trap player. If you do the + 60 might as well go to a 14 month span….they are not going to do that.

You don't want to do this because it allows players to play down a grade in school.

9/1 + 60 doesn't allow (aug july) players who started school early and are a grade ahead to play down with the grade they should be in school.

+ 60 picks up kids born 60 days BEFORE the cutofff (9/1), right? Doesn’t that address kids who started school late (or have a school cutoff (8/1) that is earlier than the soccer cutoff (9/1))? I’m asking about players who are born AFTER the soccer cutoff. 9/1 cutoff for school and soccer says a Sept 2012 kid is u12 and 6th grade (the oldest in her class). But if that kid started school one year early, she’s actually in 7th grade (the youngest in her class) and her teammates are in 6th grade. +60 doesn’t address that, right?

Correct, 9/1 + 60 does not allow kids that are older (traditionally) than their grade in school to "play down" with their grade in school.

Put more bluntly if your kid is a "hold back / regrade" 9/1 + 60 won't let them play with the grade they're in at school.They"ll have to play with the grade up.

So the 9/1 + 60 is basically what USA Lacrosse has done, but limits it to two months as oppose to 3? You have a 9/1 soccer cutoff, but if you’re within 60 days of the cutoff (July and August months) then you can play with your graduation year. So if you’re born Aug 3, 2012, but a 2031 grad as opposed to a 2030 grad since you started late, then you’d play with your grad year since you’re within 60 days from the cutoff, right?

Kind of..

It also makes sure players who are of age but not in the correct grade can't play down.

Different opinion. 9/1+60 is stupid.

Everyone except you knows that you're embarrassing yourself.

Or it’s stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Anytime you give one subset an option you don’t give the others, it just screws up the system and lends itself to abuse.

Would 1/1+60 make sense? No.

9/1+60 only makes marginal sense because SY isn’t a clean date. But it’s not workable nationally, and it’s not workable competitively.

But it takes a stupid issue, age cutoffs, and just ups the complication, which makes it dumber than the underlying issue.

Welcome to a gigantic duh...

As I've said before I prefer BY because it's easier for clubs to implement + makes more sense.

I've only included 9/1 + 60 detail because it's the only way to implement SY + make it work for everyone involved.

Having a mid July kid and suggesting SY+60 is saying I want to be at the front of the line. Preferring BY over SY in this instance is saying I prefer to be in the middle of the line rather than the back. Just generic selfishness cloaked in pretend empathy.

Believe it or not but my kid is a trapped player and I still prefer BY. From a personal perspective this allows them to "play up" at a more challenging level.

But I would consider switching to a SY+60 league. SY+60 isn't that bad if it completely addressesed all trapped players. It would be nice to go to a tournament and everyone on the field was one grade.

It would be annoying switching to SY to address trapped players and there were still trapped players.

I think you give too much credit to "grades". They can vary especially by district and even more so, between public and private. That's why soccer really should stick to AGE.

SY+60 has an age window and grade requirements.

On paper, perhaps -- although it's not really been documented as an option in this youth soccer discussion anywhere, except as examples from other sports -- where they STRUGGLE with implementation/cheating.

SY+60 eligibility window is 14 months

Only players born between 7/1 and 9/1 would need to provide an additional proof of grade enrolled in school.

You might get a couple of players lieing about their grade in school. But they would still need to be in the 14 month eligibility window. Which means even though they're cheating they're also the same age as other players from different states. Annoying but not the end of the world + would be easy to address. Definately not GY though.

As mentioned several pages back, SY +60 rewards parents that held their July kid back or enrolled them late in states where the school cutoff is in August or September (almost all states). SY +60 guy doesn’t realize/understand/get that part.

I understand completely and there's states who's cutoff is in July.

I'm happy trading 2 months of potential RAE for completely eliminating all trapped players.

It's not that big of a deal, 2 months will not change anything. The only time 2 months would come into play is when different states with different cutoff dates would play each other. And again it's 2 months!

A rational approach that also keeps the best interests of the kids as the central focus. If only all parents had this mindset.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They already know what they are going to do at this point about age spans. They haven’t gotten this far and don’t know. So no amount of emailing them to allow this or that is going to matter.

I don't think they do. The US Youth Soccer guy hinted that they would be creating different rules to accommodate different districts/states. This will never work because districts change start dates all the time. Also it would be impossible to keep track of all the different states and school start dates to maintain up to date rules.

That is for local league. For national league, it can only have one cutoff date with no waivers. And ECNL CEO already hinted 9/1. I will bet my money on it.

We'll see, 9/1 + 60 gets rid of ALL complaints from parents + trapped players.

9/1 by itself still has trapped players depending on the state/district. Which means they'll still have a group of complaining parents.

ECNL will not give a f**k on those parents whose kids are marginal and can only play down to join NL. They will not bring value to ECNL.

Just reread your comment and I don't think you understand how 9/1 + 60 would work.

With 9/1 + 60 players born from 9/1 to 9/1 that year only need to show a birth cert to register to play.

If you were born 60 days before 9/1 you can play with your grade by providing a birth cert and proof of school enrollment at X grade.

All others that are a year older in school but are born 60 days before 9/1 won't be able to play down. (Because they're not in the correct grade in school)

Make sense? Nobody is playing down + all trapped players are addressed.

Scouts would only see one grade playing on the field during showcases.

They will go to a hard cutoff date if 9/1. If I remember right during the last podcast (I know, I know) they brought up percentage of players effected by saying 9/1 will be effect the least amount of players as opposed to 8/1. I would say they have thought it through and are going with a hard date. They don’t want to mess with +30-60 when they can just set the date.

The reason why I know 9/1 + 60 will happen is because it addresses all kinds of issues + makes things easier for clubs to implement SY.

Go listen to it then
They are just trying to minimize the trap player and never said eliminate the trap player. If you do the + 60 might as well go to a 14 month span….they are not going to do that.

You don't want to do this because it allows players to play down a grade in school.

9/1 + 60 doesn't allow (aug july) players who started school early and are a grade ahead to play down with the grade they should be in school.

+ 60 picks up kids born 60 days BEFORE the cutofff (9/1), right? Doesn’t that address kids who started school late (or have a school cutoff (8/1) that is earlier than the soccer cutoff (9/1))? I’m asking about players who are born AFTER the soccer cutoff. 9/1 cutoff for school and soccer says a Sept 2012 kid is u12 and 6th grade (the oldest in her class). But if that kid started school one year early, she’s actually in 7th grade (the youngest in her class) and her teammates are in 6th grade. +60 doesn’t address that, right?

Correct, 9/1 + 60 does not allow kids that are older (traditionally) than their grade in school to "play down" with their grade in school.

Put more bluntly if your kid is a "hold back / regrade" 9/1 + 60 won't let them play with the grade they're in at school.They"ll have to play with the grade up.

So the 9/1 + 60 is basically what USA Lacrosse has done, but limits it to two months as oppose to 3? You have a 9/1 soccer cutoff, but if you’re within 60 days of the cutoff (July and August months) then you can play with your graduation year. So if you’re born Aug 3, 2012, but a 2031 grad as opposed to a 2030 grad since you started late, then you’d play with your grad year since you’re within 60 days from the cutoff, right?

Kind of..

It also makes sure players who are of age but not in the correct grade can't play down.

Different opinion. 9/1+60 is stupid.

Everyone except you knows that you're embarrassing yourself.

Or it’s stupid and makes things more complicated than they need to be.

Anytime you give one subset an option you don’t give the others, it just screws up the system and lends itself to abuse.

Would 1/1+60 make sense? No.

9/1+60 only makes marginal sense because SY isn’t a clean date. But it’s not workable nationally, and it’s not workable competitively.

But it takes a stupid issue, age cutoffs, and just ups the complication, which makes it dumber than the underlying issue.

Welcome to a gigantic duh...

As I've said before I prefer BY because it's easier for clubs to implement + makes more sense.

I've only included 9/1 + 60 detail because it's the only way to implement SY + make it work for everyone involved.

Having a mid July kid and suggesting SY+60 is saying I want to be at the front of the line. Preferring BY over SY in this instance is saying I prefer to be in the middle of the line rather than the back. Just generic selfishness cloaked in pretend empathy.

Believe it or not but my kid is a trapped player and I still prefer BY. From a personal perspective this allows them to "play up" at a more challenging level.

But I would consider switching to a SY+60 league. SY+60 isn't that bad if it completely addressesed all trapped players. It would be nice to go to a tournament and everyone on the field was one grade.

It would be annoying switching to SY to address trapped players and there were still trapped players.

I think you give too much credit to "grades". They can vary especially by district and even more so, between public and private. That's why soccer really should stick to AGE.

SY+60 has an age window and grade requirements.

On paper, perhaps -- although it's not really been documented as an option in this youth soccer discussion anywhere, except as examples from other sports -- where they STRUGGLE with implementation/cheating.

SY+60 eligibility window is 14 months

Only players born between 7/1 and 9/1 would need to provide an additional proof of grade enrolled in school.

You might get a couple of players lieing about their grade in school. But they would still need to be in the 14 month eligibility window. Which means even though they're cheating they're also the same age as other players from different states. Annoying but not the end of the world + would be easy to address. Definately not GY though.

As mentioned several pages back, SY +60 rewards parents that held their July kid back or enrolled them late in states where the school cutoff is in August or September (almost all states). SY +60 guy doesn’t realize/understand/get that part.

What’s your definition of an award in this scenario? Bring the “oldest”? There will always be an oldest and youngest no matter what. The goal is to align as many kids within their school year that works across an entire country.

This argument for grade year is great and all but in this is a zero sum game, more people are against grade year than for it and leagues are against going grade year.