Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Girls lacrosse is school grade and it’s terribly unfair due to excessive redshirting around here.
US lacrosse changed to birth year and NGLL (this area) didn’t follow.

Agree with this, too many girls that are nearly a full year older than their peers.

Whats the difference between a January 2004 birthday and a December 2004 birthday? A whole year. This is the problem. It always favor the older kids regardless the cutoff. Its a no win for the younger kids

With school grade it could be Jan 2004 playing against December 2006.

Which is likely to produce more variation in age? Question answer itself. Grade-based. This is beyond stupid.

Moving to the Aug1 - Jul31 model will align players with college recruiting as the new platform for development. The NCAA rule change to delay in recruiting impacted this situation. College coaches want to see players on the field with classmates to better judge the talent pool. It makes little sense right now to have 1/3 of the junior class born after August 03 playing with committed seniors (U18/19) and makes even less sense next spring. The younger 03 players are now all playing up a year for college recruiting! It would be better to add that pool of talent to the U17s. It’s not fair to the older 05s who now have 1/3 of their ‘23 classmates (born after Aug 2004) automatically playing up getting exposure with ‘22 Juniors and makes recruiting a mess. Let 10th graders play with 10th graders and 11th graders play with 11th graders.

No one is saying to base it off of "school grade" ... but a cut-off date that is approximately what you find in most schools across the country (e.g. September 1) would make it so that kids are generally playing with other teammates in the same grade as them, thus more likely to be playing with (and against) friends from school.

"Red-shirting" your kindergarten student wouldn't change the sports breakout at all -- if you chose to hold your kid back to give them an academic edge in kindergarten (which is a whole other discussion) it wouldn't hold them back for soccer. There would still be a calendar-based split, but it would pivot around September 1 (or whatever it used to be) so that for the most part, kids who started kindergarten at the normal age would expect to play on teams with kids in their grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Girls lacrosse is school grade and it’s terribly unfair due to excessive redshirting around here.
US lacrosse changed to birth year and NGLL (this area) didn’t follow.

Agree with this, too many girls that are nearly a full year older than their peers.

Whats the difference between a January 2004 birthday and a December 2004 birthday? A whole year. This is the problem. It always favor the older kids regardless the cutoff. Its a no win for the younger kids

With school grade it could be Jan 2004 playing against December 2006.

this - people redshirt - just look at how empty kindergarten classes are this year. I can't believe they'd be dumb enough to base it on school grade

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids (November and December) were negatively affected by the age change but, at this point, from a selfish perspective,....

So, if they change to school year, June and July birthday's will be negatively affected. A year is a year, anyway you look at it.

No you will have girls a year older playing with your kid. It will be on school grade not birth year.

It was never based on school years. The old age groups were based on birth dates that roughly align with the school year. Red shirt kids would still have to play with the appropriate grade based on birthdate.

Nope look at the proposal. It will be based on what grade you are in.

I would be happy to look at the proposal. Could you post it? I was only commenting on the old age groups that went from August to July.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Girls lacrosse is school grade and it’s terribly unfair due to excessive redshirting around here.
US lacrosse changed to birth year and NGLL (this area) didn’t follow.

Agree with this, too many girls that are nearly a full year older than their peers.

Whats the difference between a January 2004 birthday and a December 2004 birthday? A whole year. This is the problem. It always favor the older kids regardless the cutoff. Its a no win for the younger kids

With school grade it could be Jan 2004 playing against December 2006.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Girls lacrosse is school grade and it’s terribly unfair due to excessive redshirting around here.
US lacrosse changed to birth year and NGLL (this area) didn’t follow.

Agree with this, too many girls that are nearly a full year older than their peers.

Whats the difference between a January 2004 birthday and a December 2004 birthday? A whole year. This is the problem. It always favor the older kids regardless the cutoff. Its a no win for the younger kids

as it should be

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids (November and December) were negatively affected by the age change but, at this point, from a selfish perspective,....

So, if they change to school year, June and July birthday's will be negatively affected. A year is a year, anyway you look at it.

No you will have girls a year older playing with your kid. It will be on school grade not birth year.

It was never based on school years. The old age groups were based on birth dates that roughly align with the school year. Red shirt kids would still have to play with the appropriate grade based on birthdate.

Nope look at the proposal. It will be based on what grade you are in.

One needs to post a proposal to even look at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids (November and December) were negatively affected by the age change but, at this point, from a selfish perspective,....

So, if they change to school year, June and July birthday's will be negatively affected. A year is a year, anyway you look at it.

No you will have girls a year older playing with your kid. It will be on school grade not birth year.

It was never based on school years. The old age groups were based on birth dates that roughly align with the school year. Red shirt kids would still have to play with the appropriate grade based on birthdate.

Nope look at the proposal. It will be based on what grade you are in.

I just don't want DD to have to find a new team- when a group of kids have all played together for 3 years just let them stay together

Even birth year is too granular.

Anonymous wrote:Girls lacrosse is school grade and it’s terribly unfair due to excessive redshirting around here.
US lacrosse changed to birth year and NGLL (this area) didn’t follow.

Agree with this, too many girls that are nearly a full year older than their peers.

Anonymous wrote:hopefully other leagues use this as an opportunity to not care what US Soccer/ECNL thinks. The vast majority of youth payers aren't on a trajectory that will ever put them on an ECNL roster let alone US Soccer's radar. Let them turn into AAU and do their own thing while the rest of the sport ignores them

There are practically as many ECNL NOVA clubs as CCL. Making a ECNL roster is no longer difficult to make.

hopefully other leagues use this as an opportunity to not care what US Soccer/ECNL thinks. The vast majority of youth payers aren't on a trajectory that will ever put them on an ECNL roster let alone US Soccer's radar. Let them turn into AAU and do their own thing while the rest of the sport ignores them