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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It's fine that people think they have a better solution to a year-long age range by adding +30 or +60. But let's be real, what is the likelihood of this actually happening? My guess is zero.

They already changed it to 8/1. People may think this means they can change it a 3rd time. I actually think the opposite - they already put a lot of time and data into correcting to 8/1, likely already considered options like GY and +30 before changing it again, and would give teams less prep time by changing it again. The whole point of announcing a year in advance was to give teams time to prepare, not to allow for soccer mommy and daddy disagreements to lead to more changes. They changed to 8/1 because they overlooked school district data.

Commenters act like the powers that be didn't already consider +30 or +60 already, like it's some genius new idea that can only be learned on a soccer mom message board. They already considered this idea and it gained zero traction.

It ain't gonna happen. This thread is made for discussions like this, but that's as far as it'll go. [/quote]

Agree it is just a waiver system which is already granted in rec .  Playing down a biological age category though will not have a place in the non-rec space, outside the biobanding rouse that MLSN employs anyway.  [/quote]
I agree with you SY+30 with a 9/1 cutoff is just a waiver system.  But what makes it different is waiver eligibility is clearly defined in black and white.[/quote]

But both are a form of cheating by allowing kids to play down a biological age group.

[/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