Heard this is on the agenda to discuss at ECNL conference next web meeting.

[quote=Anonymous]Not all travel has elite players, to say that you should play rec is very arguable. .05% will make it to some kind of pro and 8% will make D-1 and have playing time. So to disrupt the school system for those very few athletes makes no sense. I feel most people that argue on each side of the line have children at each spectrum. If your child is that good then the birth year wont affect playing anyway. Most of the top kids are at the top programs or are being played up an age group anyway. [/quote]

There are two groups on the Birth school year kick. Parents of elementary age kids for whom rec is a perfectly acceptable solution if they feel their child's interests requires playing with schoolmates.

And then there are those who believe graduation year offers some help for their older kids when it comes to college recruiting. These parents believe that college coaches just walk showcase fields aimlessly and pull up a chair at a game and have no idea what age the kids are. These folks fail to understand that players reach out to college coaches and these coaches make up their schedule based on the kids stated graduation year and showcase schedule. College coaches know well beforehand who they are going to watch at any given showcase or league game.

And as everyone loves to point out, only 5% of players play on in college anyway so there is little reason to change a cutoff date to accommodate such a small number of people.

And then there are those parents who have middle school kids who are promoting the cutoff date that gets their bubble player on the A team.

It is a cutoff date and nothing more. Changing it won't keep players involved in the sport longer. Changing it will not make your bubble player better than they are. Changing it won't make college recruiting any easier for anyone. In short, changing it would only result in changing it. Kids will still quit playing, kids will still be affected positively or adversely by RAE and kids will still get recruited based on merit.

by*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing with your grade makes sense. I think it would keep more kids involved in competitive soccer. It is a fact that some athletic kids move on to other sports from lost opportunity. My daughter is young in the ulittles, her best friend is dying to play with her and can't because they are born different years. She is doing rec instead and another sport more competitive. I'm not saying this girl is the next Alex Morgan, or even that she won't end up in travel down the road, but thousands and thousands of these small examples add up for impact on participation. I personally quit soccer way back and moved on to other sports because I couldn't play travel with my grade. I missed the cutoff by a few days. I was able to play other sports with my friends and got more into those. I was nothing special, but again, all these things add up.

The biggest problem to that, however, is that states have different cutoffs. September 1 is by far the most common with some more earlier/later in August or September. Very few, most notably pockets around NY, use calendar year. There's no perfect answer but I say pick something that works for the most people and maybe give a 30-day buffer for an outlier based on that jurisdictions cutoff. Are we really gonna be up in arms if a girl born August 15 plays because that state has August 1st? This really only screws the calendar year school districts, which are a small minority. I have no good solution for that.

For me, the "play with schoolmates" issue is very short-sighted. Yes, there "could" be friends on the same team, but my DD plays on a team with 18 girls and none attend to her school, yes even those in same grade. They come from all over. Think if you live in a dense county or DC even, chances are you live in same MS or HS district will be very rare.

This may be true for megaclubs and older ages, but this is about participation as a whole. In a lot of the country and with smaller clubs, a lot of soccer IS where many of the kids go to school together, or a cluster of schools where people know each other in that town. Kids coming from all over is not the norm for the masses and most of the country. If a change is made, it is to get more little kids into soccer and more to stick with it as they hit the teenage years. The bigger picture is very different than your DDs type of team, albeit many on here also have kids on that type of team.

So, crux is, there is no 'on field' benefit, just to each their own. Blow up clubs - again - for one reason that doesn't benefit a majority. I could easily say then play HS ball and let mega clubs, with girls and boys with aspirations of college and beyond, compete based on the international standard. Likely, US Soccer could make any rules for <U13 and then start playing by "the rules" come U13. Either way, you're blowing up mega teams and competitive teams for those who would "like" to have friends on the team. About as selfish as a reason ever.

I'd actually argue that to harp on about a tiny percentage of elite, older teams at the expense of encouraging greater participation for hundreds of thousands or millions of kids across the country is about as selfish as it gets.

Only reason kids play sports is because of friends? I dont think that is true.

Of course not only, but absolutely it encourages it. I used to coach my daughter's rec team and half the girls started out because they were friends with my daughter and/or parents knowing me. Absolutely positively a resounding "yes" that playing with friends is a big factor at the younger ages. Not the only, and not for all, but for sure a factor for many. Heck, a girl just joined my DDs ulittle travel team who is friends with another girl from school.

Again, not saying it is the only factor, and maybe there are good competitive reasons to keep birth year. But I honestly don't think it is even debatable that being able to play with your grade, and in turn friends, encourages participation. How MUCH it matters in the big picture who knows, but can anyone seriously argue that the birth year rule fosters BETTER youth participation than playing by grade?

Rec can and always were allowed to keep school year. But there is no need in travel. Birth year works just fine. There is always a cutoff and if a kid quits because a friend is on another team then they really were not that into the sport anyway.

You definitely have bought into the prevailing thought in youth soccer that the goal should be to cull the herd so that only the best and most dedicated remain. That's not what this is about.

You seem to think that travel soccer is nothing more than an activity that "friends" are entitled to play on the same team together forever. Kids who stop playing because they are no longer on the same team as their friends are doing so because they did not make the same team as their friends did in the travel environment. Lots of kids never play soccer or other sports they were introduced to beyond elementary school and that is just fine. Kids fine other interests and make new friends or at least expand their social circle.

You parents who think travel soccer continues with the post game snack schedule and parents who keep trying to social engineer the same 5 friends together on the rec team are in for a rude surprise at travel.

Once in middle school kids fine the team and level of soccer that is appropriate for them competitive wise. It is no longer just about being with school friends. Going to school year will not make enough difference in team selection nor the ability to keep friends together. It just isn't how competitive sports work.

Your kids are young, aren't they?

No, my kid has gone through all of the disruptive changes possible and through it all I don't know a single kid who quit because they were no longer playing with their "class mates". Kids change clubs for any number of reasons. Kids stop playing everything bye middle school as they tend to focus more on their interests. My kid certainly didn't continue with every activity ever tried in elementary school why should soccer be any different for kids as they indulge in other interests regardless of cutoff dates?

Seriously, if a cutoff date is the difference between playing or not playing then the kid just isn't that interested in the activity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing with your grade makes sense. I think it would keep more kids involved in competitive soccer. It is a fact that some athletic kids move on to other sports from lost opportunity. My daughter is young in the ulittles, her best friend is dying to play with her and can't because they are born different years. She is doing rec instead and another sport more competitive. I'm not saying this girl is the next Alex Morgan, or even that she won't end up in travel down the road, but thousands and thousands of these small examples add up for impact on participation. I personally quit soccer way back and moved on to other sports because I couldn't play travel with my grade. I missed the cutoff by a few days. I was able to play other sports with my friends and got more into those. I was nothing special, but again, all these things add up.

The biggest problem to that, however, is that states have different cutoffs. September 1 is by far the most common with some more earlier/later in August or September. Very few, most notably pockets around NY, use calendar year. There's no perfect answer but I say pick something that works for the most people and maybe give a 30-day buffer for an outlier based on that jurisdictions cutoff. Are we really gonna be up in arms if a girl born August 15 plays because that state has August 1st? This really only screws the calendar year school districts, which are a small minority. I have no good solution for that.

For me, the "play with schoolmates" issue is very short-sighted. Yes, there "could" be friends on the same team, but my DD plays on a team with 18 girls and none attend to her school, yes even those in same grade. They come from all over. Think if you live in a dense county or DC even, chances are you live in same MS or HS district will be very rare.

This may be true for megaclubs and older ages, but this is about participation as a whole. In a lot of the country and with smaller clubs, a lot of soccer IS where many of the kids go to school together, or a cluster of schools where people know each other in that town. Kids coming from all over is not the norm for the masses and most of the country. If a change is made, it is to get more little kids into soccer and more to stick with it as they hit the teenage years. The bigger picture is very different than your DDs type of team, albeit many on here also have kids on that type of team.

So, crux is, there is no 'on field' benefit, just to each their own. Blow up clubs - again - for one reason that doesn't benefit a majority. I could easily say then play HS ball and let mega clubs, with girls and boys with aspirations of college and beyond, compete based on the international standard. Likely, US Soccer could make any rules for <U13 and then start playing by "the rules" come U13. Either way, you're blowing up mega teams and competitive teams for those who would "like" to have friends on the team. About as selfish as a reason ever.

I'd actually argue that to harp on about a tiny percentage of elite, older teams at the expense of encouraging greater participation for hundreds of thousands or millions of kids across the country is about as selfish as it gets.

Only reason kids play sports is because of friends? I dont think that is true.

Of course not only, but absolutely it encourages it. I used to coach my daughter's rec team and half the girls started out because they were friends with my daughter and/or parents knowing me. Absolutely positively a resounding "yes" that playing with friends is a big factor at the younger ages. Not the only, and not for all, but for sure a factor for many. Heck, a girl just joined my DDs ulittle travel team who is friends with another girl from school.

Again, not saying it is the only factor, and maybe there are good competitive reasons to keep birth year. But I honestly don't think it is even debatable that being able to play with your grade, and in turn friends, encourages participation. How MUCH it matters in the big picture who knows, but can anyone seriously argue that the birth year rule fosters BETTER youth participation than playing by grade?

Rec can and always were allowed to keep school year. But there is no need in travel. Birth year works just fine. There is always a cutoff and if a kid quits because a friend is on another team then they really were not that into the sport anyway.

You definitely have bought into the prevailing thought in youth soccer that the goal should be to cull the herd so that only the best and most dedicated remain. That's not what this is about.

You seem to think that travel soccer is nothing more than an activity that "friends" are entitled to play on the same team together forever. Kids who stop playing because they are no longer on the same team as their friends are doing so because they did not make the same team as their friends did in the travel environment. Lots of kids never play soccer or other sports they were introduced to beyond elementary school and that is just fine. Kids fine other interests and make new friends or at least expand their social circle.

You parents who think travel soccer continues with the post game snack schedule and parents who keep trying to social engineer the same 5 friends together on the rec team are in for a rude surprise at travel.

Once in middle school kids fine the team and level of soccer that is appropriate for them competitive wise. It is no longer just about being with school friends. Going to school year will not make enough difference in team selection nor the ability to keep friends together. It just isn't how competitive sports work.

Your kids are young, aren't they?

[quote=Anonymous]Not all travel has elite players, to say that you should play rec is very arguable. .05% will make it to some kind of pro and 8% will make D-1 and have playing time. So to disrupt the school system for those very few athletes makes no sense. I feel most people that argue on each side of the line have children at each spectrum. If your child is that good then the birth year wont affect playing anyway. Most of the top kids are at the top programs or are being played up an age group anyway. [/quote]

Exactly. People want what is in the best interests of their own kids right now. I wonder how many of those argument so passionately against school year age groups have younger kids. Once your kids get older, most of us realize how little this stuff matters for the vast majority of player.

find* find*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing with your grade makes sense. I think it would keep more kids involved in competitive soccer. It is a fact that some athletic kids move on to other sports from lost opportunity. My daughter is young in the ulittles, her best friend is dying to play with her and can't because they are born different years. She is doing rec instead and another sport more competitive. I'm not saying this girl is the next Alex Morgan, or even that she won't end up in travel down the road, but thousands and thousands of these small examples add up for impact on participation. I personally quit soccer way back and moved on to other sports because I couldn't play travel with my grade. I missed the cutoff by a few days. I was able to play other sports with my friends and got more into those. I was nothing special, but again, all these things add up.

The biggest problem to that, however, is that states have different cutoffs. September 1 is by far the most common with some more earlier/later in August or September. Very few, most notably pockets around NY, use calendar year. There's no perfect answer but I say pick something that works for the most people and maybe give a 30-day buffer for an outlier based on that jurisdictions cutoff. Are we really gonna be up in arms if a girl born August 15 plays because that state has August 1st? This really only screws the calendar year school districts, which are a small minority. I have no good solution for that.

For me, the "play with schoolmates" issue is very short-sighted. Yes, there "could" be friends on the same team, but my DD plays on a team with 18 girls and none attend to her school, yes even those in same grade. They come from all over. Think if you live in a dense county or DC even, chances are you live in same MS or HS district will be very rare.

This may be true for megaclubs and older ages, but this is about participation as a whole. In a lot of the country and with smaller clubs, a lot of soccer IS where many of the kids go to school together, or a cluster of schools where people know each other in that town. Kids coming from all over is not the norm for the masses and most of the country. If a change is made, it is to get more little kids into soccer and more to stick with it as they hit the teenage years. The bigger picture is very different than your DDs type of team, albeit many on here also have kids on that type of team.

So, crux is, there is no 'on field' benefit, just to each their own. Blow up clubs - again - for one reason that doesn't benefit a majority. I could easily say then play HS ball and let mega clubs, with girls and boys with aspirations of college and beyond, compete based on the international standard. Likely, US Soccer could make any rules for <U13 and then start playing by "the rules" come U13. Either way, you're blowing up mega teams and competitive teams for those who would "like" to have friends on the team. About as selfish as a reason ever.

I'd actually argue that to harp on about a tiny percentage of elite, older teams at the expense of encouraging greater participation for hundreds of thousands or millions of kids across the country is about as selfish as it gets.

Only reason kids play sports is because of friends? I dont think that is true.

Of course not only, but absolutely it encourages it. I used to coach my daughter's rec team and half the girls started out because they were friends with my daughter and/or parents knowing me. Absolutely positively a resounding "yes" that playing with friends is a big factor at the younger ages. Not the only, and not for all, but for sure a factor for many. Heck, a girl just joined my DDs ulittle travel team who is friends with another girl from school.

Again, not saying it is the only factor, and maybe there are good competitive reasons to keep birth year. But I honestly don't think it is even debatable that being able to play with your grade, and in turn friends, encourages participation. How MUCH it matters in the big picture who knows, but can anyone seriously argue that the birth year rule fosters BETTER youth participation than playing by grade?

Rec can and always were allowed to keep school year. But there is no need in travel. Birth year works just fine. There is always a cutoff and if a kid quits because a friend is on another team then they really were not that into the sport anyway.

You definitely have bought into the prevailing thought in youth soccer that the goal should be to cull the herd so that only the best and most dedicated remain. That's not what this is about.

You seem to think that travel soccer is nothing more than an activity that "friends" are entitled to play on the same team together forever. Kids who stop playing because they are no longer on the same team as their friends are doing so because they did not make the same team as their friends did in the travel environment. Lots of kids never play soccer or other sports they were introduced to beyond elementary school and that is just fine. Kids fine other interests and make new friends or at least expand their social circle.

You parents who think travel soccer continues with the post game snack schedule and parents who keep trying to social engineer the same 5 friends together on the rec team are in for a rude surprise at travel.

Once in middle school kids fine the team and level of soccer that is appropriate for them competitive wise. It is no longer just about being with school friends. Going to school year will not make enough difference in team selection nor the ability to keep friends together. It just isn't how competitive sports work.

Not all travel has elite players, to say that you should play rec is very arguable. .05% will make it to some kind of pro and 8% will make D-1 and have playing time. So to disrupt the school system for those very few athletes makes no sense. I feel most people that argue on each side of the line have children at each spectrum. If your child is that good then the birth year wont affect playing anyway. Most of the top kids are at the top programs or are being played up an age group anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing with your grade makes sense. I think it would keep more kids involved in competitive soccer. It is a fact that some athletic kids move on to other sports from lost opportunity. My daughter is young in the ulittles, her best friend is dying to play with her and can't because they are born different years. She is doing rec instead and another sport more competitive. I'm not saying this girl is the next Alex Morgan, or even that she won't end up in travel down the road, but thousands and thousands of these small examples add up for impact on participation. I personally quit soccer way back and moved on to other sports because I couldn't play travel with my grade. I missed the cutoff by a few days. I was able to play other sports with my friends and got more into those. I was nothing special, but again, all these things add up.

The biggest problem to that, however, is that states have different cutoffs. September 1 is by far the most common with some more earlier/later in August or September. Very few, most notably pockets around NY, use calendar year. There's no perfect answer but I say pick something that works for the most people and maybe give a 30-day buffer for an outlier based on that jurisdictions cutoff. Are we really gonna be up in arms if a girl born August 15 plays because that state has August 1st? This really only screws the calendar year school districts, which are a small minority. I have no good solution for that.

For me, the "play with schoolmates" issue is very short-sighted. Yes, there "could" be friends on the same team, but my DD plays on a team with 18 girls and none attend to her school, yes even those in same grade. They come from all over. Think if you live in a dense county or DC even, chances are you live in same MS or HS district will be very rare.

This may be true for megaclubs and older ages, but this is about participation as a whole. In a lot of the country and with smaller clubs, a lot of soccer IS where many of the kids go to school together, or a cluster of schools where people know each other in that town. Kids coming from all over is not the norm for the masses and most of the country. If a change is made, it is to get more little kids into soccer and more to stick with it as they hit the teenage years. The bigger picture is very different than your DDs type of team, albeit many on here also have kids on that type of team.

So, crux is, there is no 'on field' benefit, just to each their own. Blow up clubs - again - for one reason that doesn't benefit a majority. I could easily say then play HS ball and let mega clubs, with girls and boys with aspirations of college and beyond, compete based on the international standard. Likely, US Soccer could make any rules for <U13 and then start playing by "the rules" come U13. Either way, you're blowing up mega teams and competitive teams for those who would "like" to have friends on the team. About as selfish as a reason ever.

I'd actually argue that to harp on about a tiny percentage of elite, older teams at the expense of encouraging greater participation for hundreds of thousands or millions of kids across the country is about as selfish as it gets.

Only reason kids play sports is because of friends? I dont think that is true.

Of course not only, but absolutely it encourages it. I used to coach my daughter's rec team and half the girls started out because they were friends with my daughter and/or parents knowing me. Absolutely positively a resounding "yes" that playing with friends is a big factor at the younger ages. Not the only, and not for all, but for sure a factor for many. Heck, a girl just joined my DDs ulittle travel team who is friends with another girl from school.

Again, not saying it is the only factor, and maybe there are good competitive reasons to keep birth year. But I honestly don't think it is even debatable that being able to play with your grade, and in turn friends, encourages participation. How MUCH it matters in the big picture who knows, but can anyone seriously argue that the birth year rule fosters BETTER youth participation than playing by grade?

Rec can and always were allowed to keep school year. But there is no need in travel. Birth year works just fine. There is always a cutoff and if a kid quits because a friend is on another team then they really were not that into the sport anyway.

You definitely have bought into the prevailing thought in youth soccer that the goal should be to cull the herd so that only the best and most dedicated remain. That's not what this is about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Playing with your grade makes sense. I think it would keep more kids involved in competitive soccer. It is a fact that some athletic kids move on to other sports from lost opportunity. My daughter is young in the ulittles, her best friend is dying to play with her and can't because they are born different years. She is doing rec instead and another sport more competitive. I'm not saying this girl is the next Alex Morgan, or even that she won't end up in travel down the road, but thousands and thousands of these small examples add up for impact on participation. I personally quit soccer way back and moved on to other sports because I couldn't play travel with my grade. I missed the cutoff by a few days. I was able to play other sports with my friends and got more into those. I was nothing special, but again, all these things add up.

The biggest problem to that, however, is that states have different cutoffs. September 1 is by far the most common with some more earlier/later in August or September. Very few, most notably pockets around NY, use calendar year. There's no perfect answer but I say pick something that works for the most people and maybe give a 30-day buffer for an outlier based on that jurisdictions cutoff. Are we really gonna be up in arms if a girl born August 15 plays because that state has August 1st? This really only screws the calendar year school districts, which are a small minority. I have no good solution for that.

For me, the "play with schoolmates" issue is very short-sighted. Yes, there "could" be friends on the same team, but my DD plays on a team with 18 girls and none attend to her school, yes even those in same grade. They come from all over. Think if you live in a dense county or DC even, chances are you live in same MS or HS district will be very rare.

This may be true for megaclubs and older ages, but this is about participation as a whole. In a lot of the country and with smaller clubs, a lot of soccer IS where many of the kids go to school together, or a cluster of schools where people know each other in that town. Kids coming from all over is not the norm for the masses and most of the country. If a change is made, it is to get more little kids into soccer and more to stick with it as they hit the teenage years. The bigger picture is very different than your DDs type of team, albeit many on here also have kids on that type of team.

So, crux is, there is no 'on field' benefit, just to each their own. Blow up clubs - again - for one reason that doesn't benefit a majority. I could easily say then play HS ball and let mega clubs, with girls and boys with aspirations of college and beyond, compete based on the international standard. Likely, US Soccer could make any rules for <U13 and then start playing by "the rules" come U13. Either way, you're blowing up mega teams and competitive teams for those who would "like" to have friends on the team. About as selfish as a reason ever.

I'd actually argue that to harp on about a tiny percentage of elite, older teams at the expense of encouraging greater participation for hundreds of thousands or millions of kids across the country is about as selfish as it gets.

Only reason kids play sports is because of friends? I dont think that is true.

Of course not only, but absolutely it encourages it. I used to coach my daughter's rec team and half the girls started out because they were friends with my daughter and/or parents knowing me. Absolutely positively a resounding "yes" that playing with friends is a big factor at the younger ages. Not the only, and not for all, but for sure a factor for many. Heck, a girl just joined my DDs ulittle travel team who is friends with another girl from school.

Again, not saying it is the only factor, and maybe there are good competitive reasons to keep birth year. But I honestly don't think it is even debatable that being able to play with your grade, and in turn friends, encourages participation. How MUCH it matters in the big picture who knows, but can anyone seriously argue that the birth year rule fosters BETTER youth participation than playing by grade?

Rec can and always were allowed to keep school year. But there is no need in travel. Birth year works just fine. There is always a cutoff and if a kid quits because a friend is on another team then they really were not that into the sport anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

One of the suggestions is that kids will be more apt to play with their schoolmates than their teammates. YMMV, but it's being looked at as one way of keeping kids playing past the magic 13-year-old point where 75% of kids quit the game. They may be more likely to play with classmates they see on and off the field, rather than teammates they just see at practices and games.


I don't agree at all. My son is a U14 and his closest friends from school don't play soccer at all. He's made an entirely new group of friends through travel soccer, and it has worked out great.


Perhaps the kids from his school would still be playing if they were in school year.

No, they like baseball or do not like sports at all. Why does the "move back to school year" assumption assume that the baseline is all tweens wanting to do soccer, but dropping out because they are not with classmates? Soccer is not for everyone, and that is fine. People can have other sports interests, people can not like sports.

Well, honestly, because the role of soccer's governing body is to keep as many kids playing soccer as possible, especially now with the pandemic driving kids out of sports entirely. The switch to birth year was made for the convenience of coaches and scouts looking for that small percentage of top talent, and was not in the best interest of the vast majority of soccer players in this country. Moreover, as other have noted, the birth year age groups create specific problems for trapped 8th graders and high school seniors. These are often players who are very interested in soccer, but who are left with less than ideal arrangements when their teammates move to a different level based on their grade in school.

One of the suggestions is that kids will be more apt to play with their schoolmates than their teammates. YMMV, but it's being looked at as one way of keeping kids playing past the magic 13-year-old point where 75% of kids quit the game. They may be more likely to play with classmates they see on and off the field, rather than teammates they just see at practices and games.


I don't agree at all. My son is a U14 and his closest friends from school don't play soccer at all. He's made an entirely new group of friends through travel soccer, and it has worked out great.


Perhaps the kids from his school would still be playing if they were in school year.

No, they like baseball or do not like sports at all. Why does the "move back to school year" assumption assume that the baseline is all tweens wanting to do soccer, but dropping out because they are not with classmates? Soccer is not for everyone, and that is fine. People can have other sports interests, people can not like sports.

what we have seen is a younger birth year finds his/her team is going to college and the next team coming up has a full roster. You either make the younger team and bump a child who has been with them for a long time or you get bumped down to a lower team. The old age group model worked well with school year. Yes not all clubs work this way but some do.

Why make it more difficult for players, this year has been strange enough without breaking up teams