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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

It's called SY+60 so once it's written down, documented, and communicated to parents it can't slippery slope into +90 or +356, etc.

Also I read through your LAX link and what happened is the tournament let the other team they were playing against do GY when they were doing the 14 month groupings. This is why you don't want GY. What ends up happening is parents hold back / regrade their kids so their 16 year old freshman. Under GY rules they can play against just turning 14 year old freshman.

Your SY+60 marketing scheme is inaccurate. Your idea is SY-62, because you want 2 months of kids to play down in age. This creates 10 months of parents and teammates viewing July and August kids as cheaters. Not healthy.

Soccer is smart enough to avoid a 14 month window and wants 12 month groupings while balancing trapped players vs misalignment, hence picking 8-1 or 9-1. Betting money is on 9-1 for USYS and USCS/ECNL and for states to do what states do best, whatever they want.

SY+60 = 9/1 and 60 days before with both birthcert and school grade confirmation.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with SY-62.

Learn the calendar better.

Also, you should just go with 7/1 to 6/30. Then it is only a 12 month age group without so called cheaters. Skip would more likely to be on board with this.

7/1 + 6/30 don't work by themselves because they allow players a grade up to play a grade down if they were born between 7/1 and 9/1.

This is why they're floating 9/1. It doesn't allow players to play down. The problem is you still have 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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Come on, now. I think you OR an ally kept pointing to how wonderful the lacrosse idea was. So far, not seeing that anyone there OR other forums thinks it's solving ANYTHING.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

But nobody is playing down with SY+60 in fact it specifically protects against this.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

Yeah it’s only ok when a Jan birthday gets to play with a Dec Birthday, who is a grade below…but now all the BY crowd is clutching their pearls at the thought of their Jan baby playing against an older kid who is in their same grade lol….

The hypocrisy….

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

Mlsn allows biobanding, so you can legally play down to cheat if you can’t play in your own age group.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Come on, now. I think you OR an ally kept pointing to how wonderful the lacrosse idea was. So far, not seeing that anyone there OR other forums thinks it's solving ANYTHING.

Lacrosse's issue is that they allowed GY in.

SY+60 is not GY and specifically protects against 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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

But nobody is playing down with SY+60 in fact it specifically protects against this.

Not in tournaments/national leagues. This is what ECNL is and the subject of this thread. The only way for them to keep a 12-month window would be to pick clubs from states with all the same cutoff OR if those national leagues/clubs get together on 1 date.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

Yeah it’s only ok when a Jan birthday gets to play with a Dec Birthday, who is a grade below…but now all the BY crowd is clutching their pearls at the thought of their Jan baby playing against an older kid who is in their same grade lol….

The hypocrisy….

Naw, I think the BY crowd is resigned that there will be fewer BY options (if any). But they think less perhaps of a system that sends their early BY birthdays even further back, such as expanding the window. If you're going to change the window, fine, but you better keep it at 12 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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Come on, now. I think you OR an ally kept pointing to how wonderful the lacrosse idea was. So far, not seeing that anyone there OR other forums thinks it's solving ANYTHING.

Lacrosse's issue is that they allowed GY in.

SY+60 is not GY and specifically protects against it.

Too late, you can't move the goal posts now.

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

But nobody is playing down with SY+60 in fact it specifically protects against this.

Not in tournaments/national leagues. This is what ECNL is and the subject of this thread. The only way for them to keep a 12-month window would be to pick clubs from states with all the same cutoff OR if those national leagues/clubs get together on 1 date.

Look at yourself in the mirror and say "I'm going crazy about SY+90 because of 2 months"

Do you think that you're being rational?

[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:

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.

Nobody is argueing for GY.

They are argueing for SY+60 which completely bans the players GY allows.

That's what other sports have tried/trying and apparently failing at because it open's Pandora's box.

Can you give an actual example?

https://www.reddit.com/r/lacrosse/comments/1dck4jr/why_can_youth_lacrosse_not_go_to_birth_years/?sort=top

And Lacrosse made a change to fix that, which is very similar to this SY 60+ thing (I didn’t start that).

Hasn't filtered down very well ... https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1251438.page

So your sample size is a new post you started to get someone else’s opinion?

And that conversation doesn’t even talk about the change. It just talks about what it used to be.

Listen - NO ONE WANTS a true grade/grad year system because WE ALL AGREE that having the potential for a 24 month disparity between players isn’t good. What’s being discussed is not that. And if people really are having a hard time understanding that then there is nothing more anyone can do or say to help them do so.

Don't gaslight that thread. There's some clear questions about SY+90 and they pretty much don't think much of it.

I can’t tell if you’re joking

Anything SY+## is a joke, aka fiction. Lacrosse confirms expanding beyond 12 months causes disenchantment.

Does it though? Lacrosse seems to have had a bigger problem with the straight grad year.

I’m honestly having a hard time wondering why people are so butt hurt about a 60 days, or 61, etc. It’s just a reasonable solution to keep kids in the same school year.

Because playing down a year is viewed as cheating and it is not one of the options.

Yeah it’s only ok when a Jan birthday gets to play with a Dec Birthday, who is a grade below…but now all the BY crowd is clutching their pearls at the thought of their Jan baby playing against an older kid who is in their same grade lol….

The hypocrisy….

💯