ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again people... You're going crazy about 2 months!

Think about it. Yes some players might be 2 months older with SY+60 but you've completely addressed trapped players.

Seems like a fair tradeoff.

I know this is a nationwide issue and this thread has picked up non-DMV posters, but who in the DMV will be trapped due to school cutoffs being earlier than a 9/1 SY cutoff for soccer? Aren’t all the local school, public and private, in DC, MD, and VA either a 9/1 or 9/30 cutoff? Are we really thinking about +60 to help kids whose parents tried to game the system by having their July and August kids start school a year later than they were supposed to?

With SY+60 DMV clubs would be playing other DMV clubs and all players would be 9/1 unless they started in a different school district that starts 60 days before 9/1 and moved to DMV. Basically all local SY+60 games would be a 12 month birth window.

Where you might see a 14 month window is when playing against other states. And this is only allowed to completely address trapped players.

Ok, so for DMV teams, +60 helps July and August kids who either (a) moved to the DMV after starting school in a system that had a school cutoff date between 7/1 and 8/31 (I'm somewhat sympathetic to this group) or (b) started school in the DMV and have parents who wanted them to be the oldest in their grade and so held them back a year. Do I have this right?

Yes all correct.

Parents could technically hold their kid back if they were a 7/1 to 9/1. But you're not really gaining much of an advantage because all you're doing is making your kid the same age as other states with an earlier (8/1,7/1) start date.

Good point! But which states are 7/1?

There's a couple of oddball districts in Colorado. Likely to accommodate farming or weather.

Either way 7/1 gives SY+60 a little buffer if other districts go to a July start date. This allows leagues to implement SY+60 one time and not have to mess with it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just chatted with some 2011 parents who are getting two trapped 2010s this spring. They are pissed off. Not a great situation for the unwelcome trapped players coming in taking playtime and not a great situation for the 2011 starting CB that’s losing her spot to a 2010 this spring.

Clubs making these moves like this already? This is ECNL?

ECNL already allows for a limited number of trapped players to play down but it's only allowed during the High School soccer season.

People are probably getting this confused with ECNL allowing trapped players to play down the entire season. Which isn't allowed currently.

ECNL rules allow for a max of 2 trapped players to play during the 8th trap while 9th grade teammates are playing for their high school. There are also similar rules for showcases during the junior year for trapped players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just chatted with some 2011 parents who are getting two trapped 2010s this spring. They are pissed off. Not a great situation for the unwelcome trapped players coming in taking playtime and not a great situation for the 2011 starting CB that’s losing her spot to a 2010 this spring.

Clubs making these moves like this already? This is ECNL?

ECNL already allows for a limited number of trapped players to play down but it's only allowed during the High School soccer season.

People are probably getting this confused with ECNL allowing trapped players to play down the entire season. Which isn't allowed currently.

ECNL rules allow for a max of 2 trapped players to play during the 8th trap while 9th grade teammates are playing for their high school. There are also similar rules for showcases during the junior year for trapped players.

I've seen top girls go play with boys for that season. Seems like some unique opportunities can be available and it's not always bad.

[Anonymous]

If opportunities are provided for the trapped players, it may not be a terrible situation. The problem is that rarely happens.

Another issue is the creation of an unfair advantage for the 2011 conference if some teams add 2010s to their roster this spring and other don’t or can’t because their roster is maxed out at 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If opportunities are provided for the trapped players, it may not be a terrible situation. The problem is that rarely happens.

Another issue is the creation of an unfair advantage for the 2011 conference if some teams add 2010s to their roster this spring and other don’t or can’t because their roster is maxed out at 18.

Youth sports always have some level of unfairness. That said, are these matches part of the national playoffs? Then maybe having the extra older players hurts your competition's continuity. Other parents say these additions often make everyone mad. So, who actually knows if it's unfair. Maybe it's an advantage NOT to have these older players.

[Anonymous]

Standings in the ecnl conference help get you to national championships, however trapped players are not eligible for post season play

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And just to boost our numbers, let me drop this nugget in here...my SY kid could beat up your BY kid. The only reason your BY kid is scoring 2 goals a year is because they are a March baby. Eat that

If we're ALL being honest, the true top kids playing a year or MORE up already, eat everyone's lunch and aren't affected by the whole SY/BY debate!

Most kids playing up are at small clubs that struggle to fill out age groups. And most are real young.

Playing up has such a wide range that saying your kid plays up doesn't have the meaning that many think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And just to boost our numbers, let me drop this nugget in here...my SY kid could beat up your BY kid. The only reason your BY kid is scoring 2 goals a year is because they are a March baby. Eat that

In your dreams! My Q4 kid playing 6 levels up scored 14 goals in the first half against the #2 ranked team in the country, while nursing a sore hammie. 456 scouts were at that game alone to watch. Could barely get out of the parking lot they were hounding my kid so bad. Had to get over to their training session with Pele (his ghost only charges $350/hr), so we couldn't sit around and sign any more autographs.

Oh now you've really done it...you just wait until we go SY and my kid dominates!

Funny how all the single date cutoff people go silent and slink away when it's called out that the smaller number of trapped players will be double screwed over.

Meh, parents can always get them back on grade. Youth soccer should always come well before academics.

[Anonymous]

So the prior couple of posts illustrate again how crazy it would be for ECNL not to address the summer trap players as part of the fall 2026 registration change. Teams a grade down resentful of trap players playing down during their trapped seasons, messing up the rosters for all, throwing the trapped player into a hostile situation and upsetting the younger team dynamic. Better to have teams integrating those trapped kids under the new system with their grade so that doesn’t happen anymore. And trapped players can’t play in post-season. Again - why not eliminate this in fall 2026!

[Anonymous]

Why aren’t they using 8/1 as a cutoff date anymore? Where did 9/1 come from?

[Anonymous]

They studied the issue and 9/1 was the best option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just chatted with some 2011 parents who are getting two trapped 2010s this spring. They are pissed off. Not a great situation for the unwelcome trapped players coming in taking playtime and not a great situation for the 2011 starting CB that’s losing her spot to a 2010 this spring.

how is this happening, when we are still BY?

Apparently under existing rules, ECNL teams can have up to 2 trapped players on younger teams those seasons, although many clubs try to form trapped teams instead. For example:

"We offer a Spring Friendly season for all trapped players. A trapped player is an 8th grader who is
playing on a U15 team with high school-age players. For Elite and Premier level teams, our aim is
to create teams who would compete in a local league. If we are unable to form a team, we will offer
training to our trapped players. Trapped ECNL and ECNL-R players will be integrated with U14 ECNL
and ECNL-R level teams."

https://dt5602vnjxv0c.cloudfront.net/portals/1559/docs/2024-25%20season%20packet/2024-2025_afu%20program%20league%20and%20tryout%20overview.pdf

Man, what a shame it would be to leave the older July/August kids with this crappy situation on steroids in fall 2026.

They should do well in a birth year league. Hashtag Great to have options Unhashtag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just chatted with some 2011 parents who are getting two trapped 2010s this spring. They are pissed off. Not a great situation for the unwelcome trapped players coming in taking playtime and not a great situation for the 2011 starting CB that’s losing her spot to a 2010 this spring.

how is this happening, when we are still BY?

Apparently under existing rules, ECNL teams can have up to 2 trapped players on younger teams those seasons, although many clubs try to form trapped teams instead. For example:

"We offer a Spring Friendly season for all trapped players. A trapped player is an 8th grader who is
playing on a U15 team with high school-age players. For Elite and Premier level teams, our aim is
to create teams who would compete in a local league. If we are unable to form a team, we will offer
training to our trapped players. Trapped ECNL and ECNL-R players will be integrated with U14 ECNL
and ECNL-R level teams."

https://dt5602vnjxv0c.cloudfront.net/portals/1559/docs/2024-25%20season%20packet/2024-2025_afu%20program%20league%20and%20tryout%20overview.pdf

Man, what a shame it would be to leave the older July/August kids with this crappy situation on steroids in fall 2026.

They should do well in a birth year league. Hashtag Great to have options Unhashtag

Not every area will have BY leagues readily available. It isn’t so easy to switch between the two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again people... You're going crazy about 2 months!

Think about it. Yes some players might be 2 months older with SY+60 but you've completely addressed trapped players.

Seems like a fair tradeoff.

I know this is a nationwide issue and this thread has picked up non-DMV posters, but who in the DMV will be trapped due to school cutoffs being earlier than a 9/1 SY cutoff for soccer? Aren’t all the local school, public and private, in DC, MD, and VA either a 9/1 or 9/30 cutoff? Are we really thinking about +60 to help kids whose parents tried to game the system by having their July and August kids start school a year later than they were supposed to?

With SY+60 DMV clubs would be playing other DMV clubs and all players would be 9/1 unless they started in a different school district that starts 60 days before 9/1 and moved to DMV. Basically all local SY+60 games would be a 12 month birth window.

Where you might see a 14 month window is when playing against other states. And this is only allowed to completely address trapped players.

This unnecessarily complicated.

I see why national leagues want one 12 month rule without this other garbage for parents to try to grab onto like the last lifeboat for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They studied the issue and 9/1 was the best option.

That’s an oversimplification. The apparent driver of potentially switching to 9/1 is that more states have a 9/1 school cutoff than an 8/1 cutoff. But that doesn’t account for reality that many if not most August kids (and some but generally less July kids) don’t start school right upon turning 5 even in states with a 9/1 school cutoff.