Reply to ECNL moving to school year not calendar

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "ECNL moving to school year not calendar "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You dont create solutions that address 90% of the issue. Ignoring the other 10%. Same thing with Aug birthdays you cant just let them choose if they want to play with their grade or play down a grade. This is the issue.

What will happen over time is more school districs will start earlier. Which will expand the 10% youre ignoring to 15% or even higher. Also  because Aug is the oldest player possible for an age group there will be more of them over time. If theres more Aug birthdays there will be more Aug birthdays choosing to play down a grade.

By choosing to ignore these issues youve created a ticking time bomb that will only get worse over time. The squeaky wheels will get louder and louder. Once it hits a certain threshold soccer will address the issue in the dumbest way possible. Most likely with a league approved individual waiver program. Which club docs and coaches will exploit selling to the highest bidder. (This happened with DA and HS soccer waivers)

People that have been around youth soccer for a while know exactly what will happen next. People that understand math and trajectories over time also know exactly what will happen next.

Address the issues now with something like SY+30 or even SY+60 and all future issues go away.[/quote]

10% is wildly inaccurate as was posted a few pages ago. AT WORST it will be the August birthdates in the states that have a 9/1 cutoff, correct?

So if the number of players is completely evenly distributed, it is 1/12 of around 70% or 5.8%. And then overlay that the kids in AYSO, rec league, etc dont care because they can play with their grade regardless and are not checking birth certificates to see if they are 13 months younger than the oldest kid. They dont care.

So lets be generous and say there are 8 years of competitive soccer, take the top 1000 competitive teams of approximately 18 kids per roster for boys and girls and you get 360,000 kids.

Now we are are down to 20,916 kids that have August birthdates in 9-1 states. Now everyone quotes Gadwell/RAE so it is probably not evenly distributed at the elite level so lets use the fact that ECNL uses and says 70% of elite birthdates are in Q1/Q2 so that will skew the number down dramatically. So it is probably something like 15,000 kids across 8 years of both boys and girls in the top 1000 teams in the US.

So that gives us a choice:

A).  Keep it simple and just choose 8-1 cutoff and allow those 15K kids to play up with their grade or down with kids potentially more aligned with their maturity or
B).  Institute a SY+30 system that will require some type of work (debatable how much) for ALL 3,000,000 kids to now deal with.  Letters from school administrators?  Take my word for it? Upload a report card (seems like PIA issues which require more stringent controls in all systems)?

It appears that the people that run all these organizations have chosen A) as their answer, and I have to assume they at least checked in with their customers (DOCs) as to what they wanted.

Now, to offer some grace, if ECNL or GA or National League wants to establish some slightly different structure for their small groups, more power to them.  But dont try to solve a problem that impacts .005 of the population by requiring 100% of kids to jump through hoops with some random grade verification system retrofit.

And, just for clarity, using same math, there are approximately 700,000 kids that were "trapped" in the birth year structure and that number drops to virtually zero with a basic 8-1 cutoff.  So a basic 8-1 cutoff solves the issue almost completely.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics