Anonymous wrote:They studied the issue and 9/1 was the best option.
That is not what happened. They didn’t study anything. They looked at the frequency of state school age cutoffs, with 9/1, 8/31 and 9/30 being the most frequent and chose 9/1.
What they didn’t do is look at their own population of players or communities to see what the impact would be for existing players and future pools.
They didn’t “study” anything.
If they looked at the frequency of state school age cutoffs and determined which are the most common, then the did the appropriate study. You just don’t like the answer.
A lot of assumption about my preferences. I am happy with 9/1 actually.
But ECNL didn’t study anything. They are ALSO making assumptions based on superficial information. Let’s not pretend they did more than they did. At best they’re lazy, at worst cynical.
What do you want them to do? Assuming births are spread relatively evenly across the year (they are; this topic was covered in the 200s or so), isn’t determining what is the most commonly applicable school cutoff day the single most relevant factor if you’re trying to minimize trapped players?
The googles says August is the most common birth month.
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.
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.
July and August birthdates will be considered holdbacks, cheaters etc as they will need grade waivers to play down a year. This isn't the first rodeo for soccer so they aren't going to open the floodgates for parental harassment meaning the will hold fast to a 12 month window.
They’re not playing down a year. Can’t help you if you can’t grasp that.
Yes, they are playing down by definition if they are outside the established 12 month window.
We’re not talking about a 12 month window. We’re talking about grouping kids in their same grade with a slightly more flexible (and realistic) timeframe that includes all kids within a grade while protecting against extreme cases of holdbacks.
Yeah, I get it. You want a 12 month window with a few days shy of a full 2 months allowance for kids to playdown who will be referred to as cheaters. Like they are scorned in lacrosse.
Call them cheaters if you will. Scorn away. That’s all noise. What matters TO THESE KIDS is being able to play with their classmates like everyone else and not getting trapped, consistent with the dual goals of school year registration.
People making the argument about playing with classmates don't have kids that play at high levels of soccer or are U little parents with no understanding of travel soccer.
💯
Also, there is such a glaring disconnect between the rec level/U-little comments on here and what ECNL is actually - National level players, teams and competition! These players, teams and clubs represent ECNL — and the comments on here are so disconnected from that reality.
When kids enter youth soccer, they want to play with their friends which tends to match school year.
And if they reach the end of the youth line, they often want to play in college so playing school year again makes sense as it matches college scouting.
Two different scenarios but same linear path, school year.
A divergence to birth year along this path would be bizarro and pointless.
I get the thinking that SY matches college scouting.
It’s incorrect. College scouting follows players, not teams.
"There’s also the recruiting aspect. I spoke with multiple coaches who coach both high school and ECNL and they all said college scouts need a streamlined process. Think about it, they go to these showcase events and have to look up the graduation year of a player. With NCAA recruiting rules, they might be able to talk to one but not the other. Besides, working with a school-age calendar would make synchronizing events more fluid." https://goodgamekid.substack.com/p/us-soccers-missed-goal-the-case-for
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.
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.
July and August birthdates will be considered holdbacks, cheaters etc as they will need grade waivers to play down a year. This isn't the first rodeo for soccer so they aren't going to open the floodgates for parental harassment meaning the will hold fast to a 12 month window.
They’re not playing down a year. Can’t help you if you can’t grasp that.
Yes, they are playing down by definition if they are outside the established 12 month window.
We’re not talking about a 12 month window. We’re talking about grouping kids in their same grade with a slightly more flexible (and realistic) timeframe that includes all kids within a grade while protecting against extreme cases of holdbacks.
Yeah, I get it. You want a 12 month window with a few days shy of a full 2 months allowance for kids to playdown who will be referred to as cheaters. Like they are scorned in lacrosse.
Call them cheaters if you will. Scorn away. That’s all noise. What matters TO THESE KIDS is being able to play with their classmates like everyone else and not getting trapped, consistent with the dual goals of school year registration.
People making the argument about playing with classmates don't have kids that play at high levels of soccer or are U little parents with no understanding of travel soccer.
💯
Also, there is such a glaring disconnect between the rec level/U-little comments on here and what ECNL is actually - National level players, teams and competition! These players, teams and clubs represent ECNL — and the comments on here are so disconnected from that reality.
When kids enter youth soccer, they want to play with their friends which tends to match school year.
And if they reach the end of the youth line, they often want to play in college so playing school year again makes sense as it matches college scouting.
Two different scenarios but same linear path, school year.
A divergence to birth year along this path would be bizarro and pointless.
I get the thinking that SY matches college scouting.
It’s incorrect. College scouting follows players, not teams.
"There’s also the recruiting aspect. I spoke with multiple coaches who coach both high school and ECNL and they all said college scouts need a streamlined process. Think about it, they go to these showcase events and have to look up the graduation year of a player. With NCAA recruiting rules, they might be able to talk to one but not the other. Besides, working with a school-age calendar would make synchronizing events more fluid." https://goodgamekid.substack.com/p/us-soccers-missed-goal-the-case-for
This is an argument for SY by non-college coaches, about what they think college coaches are incapable of doing, despite college coaches doing that thing for decades, bc neither BY, nor SY = grad year. Not to mention rostered != GY…
What does “making synchronizing events more fluid” even mean?
Just because someone says something, doesn’t make it true…not to mention the someone saying the something is just spouting off an opinion about what other people thing / want…
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.
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.
July and August birthdates will be considered holdbacks, cheaters etc as they will need grade waivers to play down a year. This isn't the first rodeo for soccer so they aren't going to open the floodgates for parental harassment meaning the will hold fast to a 12 month window.
They’re not playing down a year. Can’t help you if you can’t grasp that.
Yes, they are playing down by definition if they are outside the established 12 month window.
We’re not talking about a 12 month window. We’re talking about grouping kids in their same grade with a slightly more flexible (and realistic) timeframe that includes all kids within a grade while protecting against extreme cases of holdbacks.
Yeah, I get it. You want a 12 month window with a few days shy of a full 2 months allowance for kids to playdown who will be referred to as cheaters. Like they are scorned in lacrosse.
Call them cheaters if you will. Scorn away. That’s all noise. What matters TO THESE KIDS is being able to play with their classmates like everyone else and not getting trapped, consistent with the dual goals of school year registration.
People making the argument about playing with classmates don't have kids that play at high levels of soccer or are U little parents with no understanding of travel soccer.
💯
Also, there is such a glaring disconnect between the rec level/U-little comments on here and what ECNL is actually - National level players, teams and competition! These players, teams and clubs represent ECNL — and the comments on here are so disconnected from that reality.
When kids enter youth soccer, they want to play with their friends which tends to match school year.
And if they reach the end of the youth line, they often want to play in college so playing school year again makes sense as it matches college scouting.
Two different scenarios but same linear path, school year.
A divergence to birth year along this path would be bizarro and pointless.
I get the thinking that SY matches college scouting.
It’s incorrect. College scouting follows players, not teams.
"There’s also the recruiting aspect. I spoke with multiple coaches who coach both high school and ECNL and they all said college scouts need a streamlined process. Think about it, they go to these showcase events and have to look up the graduation year of a player. With NCAA recruiting rules, they might be able to talk to one but not the other. Besides, working with a school-age calendar would make synchronizing events more fluid." https://goodgamekid.substack.com/p/us-soccers-missed-goal-the-case-for
You realize your quote made PP’s point? Coaches / Scouts follow players. Age cutoffs don’t matter.
After 600+ pages we can all clearly see that SY, BY and SY+60 are all inherently flawed systems.
Weight-based registration (WY) offers a fairer, safer, and more inclusive approach to youth sports. It prioritizes the well-being and development of young athletes, ensuring that they have a positive and rewarding experience. WY is used in Boxing, Wrestling, MMA, Judo and Weightlifting where Americans are globally competitive at youth and adult levels.
1. Fair Competition: WY registration levels the playing field and reduces the RAE advantage. BY or SY regimes can result in significant disparities in physical development, leading to unfair competition.
2. Safety: Grouping children by weight can help reduce the risk of injuries.
3. Developmental Benefits: WY allows children to develop their skills and confidence while competing against peers of similar physical stature. In contrast, children who are consistently outmatched due to size differences caused by SY and BY may become discouraged and drop out of sports altogether.
4. Inclusivity: Weight-based systems can be more inclusive for children who may be smaller or larger than their peers. These children might struggle in SY or BY regimes, but WY ensures they have a fair chance to compete and excel.
5. Focus on Skill Development: When children are grouped by weight, coaches can focus more on skill development rather than managing physical mismatches, leading to better overall skill acquisition.
6. Adaptability: WY can be easily adjusted as children grow and develop. Regular assessments can ensure that children are placed in the appropriate weight year, allowing for a more dynamic and responsive system compared to rigid BY or SY cutoffs.
Anonymous wrote:What a great post to wake up to. This has to be worth another 75 pages.
With the ancillary benefit of pushing +60 bot to the sidelines (no pun intended).
Easy solution - weight based + 61 with a BY component to it and you need a notarized note from your registrar’s office to prove you’re in the grade you say you’re in.
Anonymous wrote:What a great post to wake up to. This has to be worth another 75 pages.
With the ancillary benefit of pushing +60 bot to the sidelines (no pun intended).
Easy solution - weight based + 61 with a BY component to it and you need a notarized note from your registrar’s office to prove you’re in the grade you say you’re in.
Unfair for the kids whose schools don’t have notaries on staff.
Anonymous wrote:After 600+ pages we can all clearly see that SY, BY and SY+60 are all inherently flawed systems.
Weight-based registration (WY) offers a fairer, safer, and more inclusive approach to youth sports. It prioritizes the well-being and development of young athletes, ensuring that they have a positive and rewarding experience. WY is used in Boxing, Wrestling, MMA, Judo and Weightlifting where Americans are globally competitive at youth and adult levels.
1. Fair Competition: WY registration levels the playing field and reduces the RAE advantage. BY or SY regimes can result in significant disparities in physical development, leading to unfair competition.
2. Safety: Grouping children by weight can help reduce the risk of injuries.
3. Developmental Benefits: WY allows children to develop their skills and confidence while competing against peers of similar physical stature. In contrast, children who are consistently outmatched due to size differences caused by SY and BY may become discouraged and drop out of sports altogether.
4. Inclusivity: Weight-based systems can be more inclusive for children who may be smaller or larger than their peers. These children might struggle in SY or BY regimes, but WY ensures they have a fair chance to compete and excel.
5. Focus on Skill Development: When children are grouped by weight, coaches can focus more on skill development rather than managing physical mismatches, leading to better overall skill acquisition.
6. Adaptability: WY can be easily adjusted as children grow and develop. Regular assessments can ensure that children are placed in the appropriate weight year, allowing for a more dynamic and responsive system compared to rigid BY or SY cutoffs.
Great idea but there should be +/- adjustments to weight “scores” based on height and BMI, otherwise the tall & slender and short & muscular kids will have an inherent advantage over the portly ones.
Anonymous wrote:What a great post to wake up to. This has to be worth another 75 pages.
With the ancillary benefit of pushing +60 bot to the sidelines (no pun intended).
Easy solution - weight based + 61 with a BY component to it and you need a notarized note from your registrar’s office to prove you’re in the grade you say you’re in.
Unfair for the kids whose schools don’t have notaries on staff.
Also ads another pay-to-play advantage to clubs and families that can charge and afford soccer nutritionists
Forum Index
»
Soccer
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}