Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree on an SY+30 or similar idea. And also agree that the soccer club leadership, at least in the clubs I see in one of the biggest soccer markets in the US, are full of idiots. However, arguing that school districts will move their age cutoffs earlier because of soccer, that's just not in the realm of reality.

No school districts changing to earlier and earlier start dates has nothing to do with soccer. Its private schools getting a jump on other schools. Its also districts that are trying to distribute the days teachers take off in different ways. (Shorter summer break but longer winter break as an example) Also districts with a large farming community start earlier in the summer so kids can work on the farms during harvest. These are just some of the reasons. There are others.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent USWNT Aug-born players:

Sophia Smith
Kelly O'Hara
Casey Krueger

For fun, here are some notable July-born players:

Alex Morgan
Megan Rapinoe
Crystal Dunn

All these played youth under the previous SY system

I am not sure what this suggests. That talent gets found regardless of birthdate? If so, I agree with it. If it is trying to suggest that these women would not have been "found" based on their July/August birthdate I wholeheartedly disagree because all of these women were most likely the best player on their teams regardless of structure and most likely were playing up a year or two in the first place.

It suggests that if you are concerned that changing the age cutoff by 5 months is going to stop your kid from reaching their soccer glory, then your kid isn't good enough for glory.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree on an SY+30 or similar idea. And also agree that the soccer club leadership, at least in the clubs I see in one of the biggest soccer markets in the US, are full of idiots. However, arguing that school districts will move their age cutoffs earlier because of soccer, that's just not in the realm of reality.

Anonymous wrote:Recent USWNT Aug-born players:

Sophia Smith
Kelly O'Hara
Casey Krueger

For fun, here are some notable July-born players:

Alex Morgan
Megan Rapinoe
Crystal Dunn

All these played youth under the previous SY system

I am not sure what this suggests. That talent gets found regardless of birthdate? If so, I agree with it. If it is trying to suggest that these women would not have been "found" based on their July/August birthdate I wholeheartedly disagree because all of these women were most likely the best player on their teams regardless of structure and most likely were playing up a year or two in the first place.

Kid with February 09 birthday plays U17 this coming fall season (fall 25). Can someone explain how this affects him or his current team for his senior year (Fall 26).

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But there options! Prior to the two changes - the first to 9/1 and now to 8/1 - trapped players basically had no choices worth anything.

Now to your point, what percent of August birthday kids are aligned to the year prior and not the year ahead? You say majority, are misaligned but that seems unlikely, so do you have numbers?

from 2020 if you have newer data feel free to share.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab1_3-2020.asp

That is just a link to state cut offs. The question was how many Aug kids are actually aligned to the year prior? There is a percentage of kids (I don’t know the number, but that’s what the OG poster wants to know) who are born in Aug with a Sept 1 cutoff that don’t start school until the following year. Anecdotally, it’s about 1/2 in my experience (some are the youngest in their grade and some choose to be the oldest).

Anonymous wrote:But there options! Prior to the two changes - the first to 9/1 and now to 8/1 - trapped players basically had no choices worth anything.

Now to your point, what percent of August birthday kids are aligned to the year prior and not the year ahead? You say majority, are misaligned but that seems unlikely, so do you have numbers?

from 2020 if you have newer data feel free to share.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab1_3-2020.asp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been out in the lake all day today. Coming back to read all the arguments that include no real benefit is the highlight of my day and why I a say god bless the internet and p2p soccer.

It is frustrating. There's so many involved in youth soccer that want to do things the dumbest way possible. You can try to show them better processes to address issues but it wont matter.

On a more positive note this does create a void that allows a more forward thinking league to get ahead.

Those that you criticize as doing things, the "dumbest way possible" have spent their lives involved youth soccer. Why would they listen to a random Internet guy who doesn't know all of the issues and relationships among the players, parents, clubs, leagues and coaches? And there are millions of random internet guys with differing plans and opinions. They all haven't earned the knowledge and experience to be true decision makers, they can only Monday morning quarterback.

If you think your waiver system to create an age range over 12 months is so great, harassing people on an Internet forum to believe you is a dead end. Go write an article or op ed pushing the idea or volunteer with clubs to better understand the industry.

The problem is there is someone trying to claim grade verification is a deal breaker because it is too hard, we point out that it's not, then we get a rando saying it's you again stop. I don't think you are them because your posts come across more as if it's not going to happen so why discuss it. All we are doing and I'm using we because there is more than one of us commenting. We are trying to point out that the system as chosen defaults to Aug players being misaligned in the majority of the country. But but they can play up... OK by that logic every Jan-July/August player could have chosen to play up in our current system to not be with those a grade below them. Very very very few do. Pointing out that the proposed system defaults to this misalignment and someone says but that can play up, well cool that's not the problem and that doesn't solve the default status. If that issue is too nuanced for you apologies.

Point out you think you are the smartest person in the room all you want, your idea is worthless because you are not a decision maker. Obviously nobody here is. You are stuck on a forum heavily invested in a sales pitching a wacky idea to nobody in particular. You are even a bunch of levels below Musk in his pursuit to cut the deficit. He put his time and money where his mouth was, and all he did was prove that he didn't have it to solve the problem. Pony up some time and money for your genius idea and then get back to the forum gloating about how you saved the world for the handful of July 31 birthdays in Kentucky.

But there options! Prior to the two changes - the first to 9/1 and now to 8/1 - trapped players basically had no choices worth anything.

Now to your point, what percent of August birthday kids are aligned to the year prior and not the year ahead? You say majority, are misaligned but that seems unlikely, so do you have numbers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been out in the lake all day today. Coming back to read all the arguments that include no real benefit is the highlight of my day and why I a say god bless the internet and p2p soccer.

It is frustrating. There's so many involved in youth soccer that want to do things the dumbest way possible. You can try to show them better processes to address issues but it wont matter.

On a more positive note this does create a void that allows a more forward thinking league to get ahead.

Those that you criticize as doing things, the "dumbest way possible" have spent their lives involved youth soccer. Why would they listen to a random Internet guy who doesn't know all of the issues and relationships among the players, parents, clubs, leagues and coaches? And there are millions of random internet guys with differing plans and opinions. They all haven't earned the knowledge and experience to be true decision makers, they can only Monday morning quarterback.

If you think your waiver system to create an age range over 12 months is so great, harassing people on an Internet forum to believe you is a dead end. Go write an article or op ed pushing the idea or volunteer with clubs to better understand the industry.

The problem is there is someone trying to claim grade verification is a deal breaker because it is too hard, we point out that it's not, then we get a rando saying it's you again stop. I don't think you are them because your posts come across more as if it's not going to happen so why discuss it. All we are doing and I'm using we because there is more than one of us commenting. We are trying to point out that the system as chosen defaults to Aug players being misaligned in the majority of the country. But but they can play up... OK by that logic every Jan-July/August player could have chosen to play up in our current system to not be with those a grade below them. Very very very few do. Pointing out that the proposed system defaults to this misalignment and someone says but that can play up, well cool that's not the problem and that doesn't solve the default status. If that issue is too nuanced for you apologies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been out in the lake all day today. Coming back to read all the arguments that include no real benefit is the highlight of my day and why I a say god bless the internet and p2p soccer.

It is frustrating. There's so many involved in youth soccer that want to do things the dumbest way possible. You can try to show them better processes to address issues but it wont matter.

On a more positive note this does create a void that allows a more forward thinking league to get ahead.

Those that you criticize as doing things, the "dumbest way possible" have spent their lives involved youth soccer. Why would they listen to a random Internet guy who doesn't know all of the issues and relationships among the players, parents, clubs, leagues and coaches? And there are millions of random internet guys with differing plans and opinions. They all haven't earned the knowledge and experience to be true decision makers, they can only Monday morning quarterback.

If you think your waiver system to create an age range over 12 months is so great, harassing people on an Internet forum to believe you is a dead end. Go write an article or op ed pushing the idea or volunteer with clubs to better understand the industry.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been out in the lake all day today. Coming back to read all the arguments that include no real benefit is the highlight of my day and why I a say god bless the internet and p2p soccer.

It is frustrating. There's so many involved in youth soccer that want to do things the dumbest way possible. You can try to show them better processes to address issues but it wont matter.

On a more positive note this does create a void that allows a more forward thinking league to get ahead.

I’ve been out in the lake all day today. Coming back to read all the arguments that include no real benefit is the highlight of my day and why I a say god bless the internet and p2p soccer.