Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So….will mls next 2 announce they are going SY? GA did….

I think the suspicion now is both MLSN 1 and 2 will announce SY soon but still close to a coin toss chance if I had to guess

If that screenshot is real (it is real by the way), there is no way they come back in a few weeks and say "Sorry for the long wait and massive confusion for our member clubs, but we're not changing anything even though that will be hugely problematic for you as a partner club".

They are obviously debating what and how much to change. So there will 100% be a change in their current BY system. No doubt about that now, but to what extent is the question. Possible scenarios:

1- Total change to SY across the board (still seems unlikely to me but maybe not)
2- Partial SY change (just the P2P clubs at MLSN1 and MLSN2).
3- Just MLSN2 changes to SY
4- Enhanced biobanding allowing Q4 SY players to play 'down'.
5- ? Something else ?

5. They go 9/1 because they are mad they are being “forced” to change and want to be as difficult as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So….will mls next 2 announce they are going SY? GA did….

I think the suspicion now is both MLSN 1 and 2 will announce SY soon but still close to a coin toss chance if I had to guess

If that screenshot is real (it is real by the way), there is no way they come back in a few weeks and say "Sorry for the long wait and massive confusion for our member clubs, but we're not changing anything even though that will be hugely problematic for you as a partner club".

They are obviously debating what and how much to change. So there will 100% be a change in their current BY system. No doubt about that now, but to what extent is the question. Possible scenarios:

1- Total change to SY across the board (still seems unlikely to me but maybe not)
2- Partial SY change (just the P2P clubs at MLSN1 and MLSN2).
3- Just MLSN2 changes to SY
4- Enhanced biobanding allowing Q4 SY players to play 'down'.
5- ? Something else ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So….will mls next 2 announce they are going SY? GA did….

I think the suspicion now is both MLSN 1 and 2 will announce SY soon but still close to a coin toss chance if I had to guess

If that screenshot is real (it is real by the way), there is no way they come back in a few weeks and say "Sorry for the long wait and massive confusion for our member clubs, but we're not changing anything even though that will be hugely problematic for you as a partner club".

They are obviously debating what and how much to change. So there will 100% be a change in their current BY system. No doubt about that now, but to what extent is the question. Possible scenarios:

1- Total change to SY across the board (still seems unlikely to me but maybe not)
2- Partial SY change (just the P2P clubs at MLSN1 and MLSN2).
3- Just MLSN2 changes to SY
4- Enhanced biobanding allowing Q4 SY players to play 'down'.
5- ? Something else ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Geez, I'm only Aug-Jul guy. Not sure where you get GY out of that.

Amen, Aug-Jul, no side grade rules. Let's move on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So….will mls next 2 announce they are going SY? GA did….

I think the suspicion now is both MLSN 1 and 2 will announce SY soon but still close to a coin toss chance if I had to guess

Anonymous wrote:Geez, I'm only Aug-Jul guy. Not sure where you get GY out of that.

Anonymous wrote:So….will mls next 2 announce they are going SY? GA did….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the GA announcment that was initially proven incorrect then later ended up being correct. (but the GA doc was made up) Probabaly the same parent thats over invested making things up to win arguements online about MLS.

You’re a world class tool.Why would someone make up a document with factual information? To try and trick people into knowing truthful information?

They did it before with both a fake "So Cal" announcement then a fake GA document. This looks a lot like both of them.

Just because crazy person happened to be correct on a 50/50 decision doesnt mean the docs were any less fake.

I just don’t see the logic behind what you’re saying? Someone is faking documents with information that is true?

Yes, someone was faking documents last year about "So Cal" (SOCAL league in California) and GA. The documents were proven to be fake. But, 6-8 months later they ended up being partially right. At the tine the fake docs were a 50/50 decision for leagues. Just because whoever created them was partially right doesn't make them any less fake.

Can you provide the link? I’m not understanding how someone can be partially right? They would be wrong or right? Is this MLSN person linked to same account?

First there was misspellings all over the "So Cal" announcement. I believe they also provided a date when it would occur and SY window of 9/1-8/31. Both turned out to be false. I dont remember what was weird about the GA fake doc. Might have been fonts or somehting. Both looked a lot like this one.

Believe whatever you want but be aware that there are people willing to fake documents to win arguements online or maybe try to pressure MLS into what they want to occur.

The misspellings are from the poster HERE, not in the screenshot on Reddit of the message -- which looks more legit.

Im talking about the misspellings on the fake So Cal document from last year.

Right to draw comparisons to the MLSN message -- which doesn't have misspellings (except for the poster who copied it here)!

The brush used to black out something in the MLS doc/pic is/was the same brush used to black out something in the GA fake doc.

When I saw that = Highly suspicious

All sorts of people do that to preserve anonymity. That's not really a red flag. That's someone using their computer.

Its more likely that the same people drafted both the GA and MLS screenshots.

What are you debating that is being said? It provides no information so should be pretty easy to confirm with your DOC. Whether this email is true or not it’s almost a certainty that mlsn has not made a decision and will communicate when they do.

Fake is fake. It casts a heavy shadow on what's attempting to be relayed.

The likely person that wrote the fake So Cal and GA docs used to comment here saying whats the big deal if they ended up being mostly true.

First, they were fake.
Second, they were 50/50 guesses that happened to be partially true

So all posts of photos with the black out of other people’s names and email address is all from one person?

All in the hopes of tricking people to believe the truth before it’s official?

Actually, what I see is the thread troll here looking for something new and dumb to argue about to the point they even perhaps copied it with the spelling errors here to make it seem fake to bolster the case!

I think theres a very good chance that GY Dad is the one that created the fake MLS screenshot. He probabaly did the same with the GA and So Cal docs.

Yes! And all maybe with the goal of trolling THIS thread.

Its pretty simple.

GY Guy wants clubs to switch from BY to SY because its that much closer to letting his kid play in showcases on a team of players 1-2 years younger.

GY Guy fights against SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play on a team with their grade in school. Because he knows that if implemeted GY is 100% never going to happen. Players will all be the same age on the field and calls for implementing GY will be ignored.

No, you are off here.

The GY guy wants kids forced to play on grade. He can't drop making rules grade based where now grades are irrelevant, hates RAE, wants SY+ BS because it forces GY, etc. Nobody else wants GY but him.

I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. They could replace them all with ID sessions if they wanted. But there have been rumors of changes although I don't think anybody is advocating for changes or against here.

Come on just be honest...

"I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. "

Well said GY guy. We all know you want GY at showcases so your kid can play down on team with players 1-2 years younger.

Can you cite someone asking for grades at Showcases? I do not recall anyone. Thanks.

Every collge recruiter and coach.

Ok, so nobody on this thread then.

And the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases.

Basically everyone but you

Again, can you cite someone?

the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases

Can you cite someone on this thread? Cite = quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

You dont get it. Nobody wants GY in soccer. You might not see it in this thread as much but 99% of parents dont post here.

You keep lighting nudging GY and think that people dont notice. They do notice and they dont want GY in youth club soccer.

People do want SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that says younger players must play on rhe team thats their grade in school. This gives the same end result. All players on field are the same grade in school. Which is what college coaches and recruiters want. But keeps teams seperate (doesnt allow older players to play down) which protects the investment parents make to play club soccer.

People don't want a rule forcing kids to play up. They only want the flexibility to do so -- which they get with Aug-Jul, because players can always play up an age group when it makes sense. Forcing up only would cause more problems that the transition doesn't need, because not all younger players have the ability play with older kids. Forcing up takes opportunities away from kids in the age group because teams/clubs would have no choice but to roster them. Forcing up potentially disadvantages the younger kids who may then quit sooner (a few who make it may be really strong but others on the margin would may have developed better playing in their age group). And finally, forcing up introduces the idea that grade is integral in youth soccer, laying the groundwork for a push to GY in general down the road. The best way to avoid that is never making a rule in the first place.

Can both of you GY debaters take a break? Seriously you both need to get a life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the GA announcment that was initially proven incorrect then later ended up being correct. (but the GA doc was made up) Probabaly the same parent thats over invested making things up to win arguements online about MLS.

You’re a world class tool.Why would someone make up a document with factual information? To try and trick people into knowing truthful information?

They did it before with both a fake "So Cal" announcement then a fake GA document. This looks a lot like both of them.

Just because crazy person happened to be correct on a 50/50 decision doesnt mean the docs were any less fake.

I just don’t see the logic behind what you’re saying? Someone is faking documents with information that is true?

Yes, someone was faking documents last year about "So Cal" (SOCAL league in California) and GA. The documents were proven to be fake. But, 6-8 months later they ended up being partially right. At the tine the fake docs were a 50/50 decision for leagues. Just because whoever created them was partially right doesn't make them any less fake.

Can you provide the link? I’m not understanding how someone can be partially right? They would be wrong or right? Is this MLSN person linked to same account?

First there was misspellings all over the "So Cal" announcement. I believe they also provided a date when it would occur and SY window of 9/1-8/31. Both turned out to be false. I dont remember what was weird about the GA fake doc. Might have been fonts or somehting. Both looked a lot like this one.

Believe whatever you want but be aware that there are people willing to fake documents to win arguements online or maybe try to pressure MLS into what they want to occur.

The misspellings are from the poster HERE, not in the screenshot on Reddit of the message -- which looks more legit.

Im talking about the misspellings on the fake So Cal document from last year.

Right to draw comparisons to the MLSN message -- which doesn't have misspellings (except for the poster who copied it here)!

The brush used to black out something in the MLS doc/pic is/was the same brush used to black out something in the GA fake doc.

When I saw that = Highly suspicious

All sorts of people do that to preserve anonymity. That's not really a red flag. That's someone using their computer.

Its more likely that the same people drafted both the GA and MLS screenshots.

What are you debating that is being said? It provides no information so should be pretty easy to confirm with your DOC. Whether this email is true or not it’s almost a certainty that mlsn has not made a decision and will communicate when they do.

Fake is fake. It casts a heavy shadow on what's attempting to be relayed.

The likely person that wrote the fake So Cal and GA docs used to comment here saying whats the big deal if they ended up being mostly true.

First, they were fake.
Second, they were 50/50 guesses that happened to be partially true

So all posts of photos with the black out of other people’s names and email address is all from one person?

All in the hopes of tricking people to believe the truth before it’s official?

Actually, what I see is the thread troll here looking for something new and dumb to argue about to the point they even perhaps copied it with the spelling errors here to make it seem fake to bolster the case!

I think theres a very good chance that GY Dad is the one that created the fake MLS screenshot. He probabaly did the same with the GA and So Cal docs.

Yes! And all maybe with the goal of trolling THIS thread.

Its pretty simple.

GY Guy wants clubs to switch from BY to SY because its that much closer to letting his kid play in showcases on a team of players 1-2 years younger.

GY Guy fights against SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play on a team with their grade in school. Because he knows that if implemeted GY is 100% never going to happen. Players will all be the same age on the field and calls for implementing GY will be ignored.

No, you are off here.

The GY guy wants kids forced to play on grade. He can't drop making rules grade based where now grades are irrelevant, hates RAE, wants SY+ BS because it forces GY, etc. Nobody else wants GY but him.

I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. They could replace them all with ID sessions if they wanted. But there have been rumors of changes although I don't think anybody is advocating for changes or against here.

Come on just be honest...

"I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. "

Well said GY guy. We all know you want GY at showcases so your kid can play down on team with players 1-2 years younger.

Can you cite someone asking for grades at Showcases? I do not recall anyone. Thanks.

Every collge recruiter and coach.

Ok, so nobody on this thread then.

And the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases.

Basically everyone but you

Again, can you cite someone?

the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases

Can you cite someone on this thread? Cite = quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

You dont get it. Nobody wants GY in soccer. You might not see it in this thread as much but 99% of parents dont post here.

You keep lighting nudging GY and think that people dont notice. They do notice and they dont want GY in youth club soccer.

People do want SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that says younger players must play on rhe team thats their grade in school. This gives the same end result. All players on field are the same grade in school. Which is what college coaches and recruiters want. But keeps teams seperate (doesnt allow older players to play down) which protects the investment parents make to play club soccer.

People don't want a rule forcing kids to play up. They only want the flexibility to do so -- which they get with Aug-Jul, because players can always play up an age group when it makes sense. Forcing up only would cause more problems that the transition doesn't need, because not all younger players have the ability play with older kids. Forcing up takes opportunities away from kids in the age group because teams/clubs would have no choice but to roster them. Forcing up potentially disadvantages the younger kids who may then quit sooner (a few who make it may be really strong but others on the margin would may have developed better playing in their age group). And finally, forcing up introduces the idea that grade is integral in youth soccer, laying the groundwork for a push to GY in general down the road. The best way to avoid that is never making a rule in the first place.

Can both of you GY debaters take a break? Seriously you both need to get a life.

No. the GY Guy wants older players to play against 1-2 years younger players.

To make sure this never happens just add a rule to SY 8/1-7/31 that says younger players must play with their grade.

Problem solved. GY Guy can go screw up a different sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the GA announcment that was initially proven incorrect then later ended up being correct. (but the GA doc was made up) Probabaly the same parent thats over invested making things up to win arguements online about MLS.

You’re a world class tool.Why would someone make up a document with factual information? To try and trick people into knowing truthful information?

They did it before with both a fake "So Cal" announcement then a fake GA document. This looks a lot like both of them.

Just because crazy person happened to be correct on a 50/50 decision doesnt mean the docs were any less fake.

I just don’t see the logic behind what you’re saying? Someone is faking documents with information that is true?

Yes, someone was faking documents last year about "So Cal" (SOCAL league in California) and GA. The documents were proven to be fake. But, 6-8 months later they ended up being partially right. At the tine the fake docs were a 50/50 decision for leagues. Just because whoever created them was partially right doesn't make them any less fake.

Can you provide the link? I’m not understanding how someone can be partially right? They would be wrong or right? Is this MLSN person linked to same account?

First there was misspellings all over the "So Cal" announcement. I believe they also provided a date when it would occur and SY window of 9/1-8/31. Both turned out to be false. I dont remember what was weird about the GA fake doc. Might have been fonts or somehting. Both looked a lot like this one.

Believe whatever you want but be aware that there are people willing to fake documents to win arguements online or maybe try to pressure MLS into what they want to occur.

The misspellings are from the poster HERE, not in the screenshot on Reddit of the message -- which looks more legit.

Im talking about the misspellings on the fake So Cal document from last year.

Right to draw comparisons to the MLSN message -- which doesn't have misspellings (except for the poster who copied it here)!

The brush used to black out something in the MLS doc/pic is/was the same brush used to black out something in the GA fake doc.

When I saw that = Highly suspicious

All sorts of people do that to preserve anonymity. That's not really a red flag. That's someone using their computer.

Its more likely that the same people drafted both the GA and MLS screenshots.

What are you debating that is being said? It provides no information so should be pretty easy to confirm with your DOC. Whether this email is true or not it’s almost a certainty that mlsn has not made a decision and will communicate when they do.

Fake is fake. It casts a heavy shadow on what's attempting to be relayed.

The likely person that wrote the fake So Cal and GA docs used to comment here saying whats the big deal if they ended up being mostly true.

First, they were fake.
Second, they were 50/50 guesses that happened to be partially true

So all posts of photos with the black out of other people’s names and email address is all from one person?

All in the hopes of tricking people to believe the truth before it’s official?

Actually, what I see is the thread troll here looking for something new and dumb to argue about to the point they even perhaps copied it with the spelling errors here to make it seem fake to bolster the case!

I think theres a very good chance that GY Dad is the one that created the fake MLS screenshot. He probabaly did the same with the GA and So Cal docs.

Yes! And all maybe with the goal of trolling THIS thread.

Its pretty simple.

GY Guy wants clubs to switch from BY to SY because its that much closer to letting his kid play in showcases on a team of players 1-2 years younger.

GY Guy fights against SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play on a team with their grade in school. Because he knows that if implemeted GY is 100% never going to happen. Players will all be the same age on the field and calls for implementing GY will be ignored.

No, you are off here.

The GY guy wants kids forced to play on grade. He can't drop making rules grade based where now grades are irrelevant, hates RAE, wants SY+ BS because it forces GY, etc. Nobody else wants GY but him.

I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. They could replace them all with ID sessions if they wanted. But there have been rumors of changes although I don't think anybody is advocating for changes or against here.

Come on just be honest...

"I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. "

Well said GY guy. We all know you want GY at showcases so your kid can play down on team with players 1-2 years younger.

Can you cite someone asking for grades at Showcases? I do not recall anyone. Thanks.

Every collge recruiter and coach.

Ok, so nobody on this thread then.

And the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases.

Basically everyone but you

Again, can you cite someone?

the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases

Can you cite someone on this thread? Cite = quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

You dont get it. Nobody wants GY in soccer. You might not see it in this thread as much but 99% of parents dont post here.

You keep lighting nudging GY and think that people dont notice. They do notice and they dont want GY in youth club soccer.

People do want SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that says younger players must play on rhe team thats their grade in school. This gives the same end result. All players on field are the same grade in school. Which is what college coaches and recruiters want. But keeps teams seperate (doesnt allow older players to play down) which protects the investment parents make to play club soccer.

People don't want a rule forcing kids to play up. They only want the flexibility to do so -- which they get with Aug-Jul, because players can always play up an age group when it makes sense. Forcing up only would cause more problems that the transition doesn't need, because not all younger players have the ability play with older kids. Forcing up takes opportunities away from kids in the age group because teams/clubs would have no choice but to roster them. Forcing up potentially disadvantages the younger kids who may then quit sooner (a few who make it may be really strong but others on the margin would may have developed better playing in their age group). And finally, forcing up introduces the idea that grade is integral in youth soccer, laying the groundwork for a push to GY in general down the road. The best way to avoid that is never making a rule in the first place.

Can both of you GY debaters take a break? Seriously you both need to get a life.

No. the GY Guy wants older players to play against 1-2 years younger players.

To make sure this never happens just add a rule to SY 8/1-7/31 that says younger players must play with their grade.

Problem solved. GY Guy can go screw up a different sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the GA announcment that was initially proven incorrect then later ended up being correct. (but the GA doc was made up) Probabaly the same parent thats over invested making things up to win arguements online about MLS.

You’re a world class tool.Why would someone make up a document with factual information? To try and trick people into knowing truthful information?

They did it before with both a fake "So Cal" announcement then a fake GA document. This looks a lot like both of them.

Just because crazy person happened to be correct on a 50/50 decision doesnt mean the docs were any less fake.

I just don’t see the logic behind what you’re saying? Someone is faking documents with information that is true?

Yes, someone was faking documents last year about "So Cal" (SOCAL league in California) and GA. The documents were proven to be fake. But, 6-8 months later they ended up being partially right. At the tine the fake docs were a 50/50 decision for leagues. Just because whoever created them was partially right doesn't make them any less fake.

Can you provide the link? I’m not understanding how someone can be partially right? They would be wrong or right? Is this MLSN person linked to same account?

First there was misspellings all over the "So Cal" announcement. I believe they also provided a date when it would occur and SY window of 9/1-8/31. Both turned out to be false. I dont remember what was weird about the GA fake doc. Might have been fonts or somehting. Both looked a lot like this one.

Believe whatever you want but be aware that there are people willing to fake documents to win arguements online or maybe try to pressure MLS into what they want to occur.

The misspellings are from the poster HERE, not in the screenshot on Reddit of the message -- which looks more legit.

Im talking about the misspellings on the fake So Cal document from last year.

Right to draw comparisons to the MLSN message -- which doesn't have misspellings (except for the poster who copied it here)!

The brush used to black out something in the MLS doc/pic is/was the same brush used to black out something in the GA fake doc.

When I saw that = Highly suspicious

All sorts of people do that to preserve anonymity. That's not really a red flag. That's someone using their computer.

Its more likely that the same people drafted both the GA and MLS screenshots.

What are you debating that is being said? It provides no information so should be pretty easy to confirm with your DOC. Whether this email is true or not it’s almost a certainty that mlsn has not made a decision and will communicate when they do.

Fake is fake. It casts a heavy shadow on what's attempting to be relayed.

The likely person that wrote the fake So Cal and GA docs used to comment here saying whats the big deal if they ended up being mostly true.

First, they were fake.
Second, they were 50/50 guesses that happened to be partially true

So all posts of photos with the black out of other people’s names and email address is all from one person?

All in the hopes of tricking people to believe the truth before it’s official?

Actually, what I see is the thread troll here looking for something new and dumb to argue about to the point they even perhaps copied it with the spelling errors here to make it seem fake to bolster the case!

I think theres a very good chance that GY Dad is the one that created the fake MLS screenshot. He probabaly did the same with the GA and So Cal docs.

Yes! And all maybe with the goal of trolling THIS thread.

Its pretty simple.

GY Guy wants clubs to switch from BY to SY because its that much closer to letting his kid play in showcases on a team of players 1-2 years younger.

GY Guy fights against SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that younger players must play on a team with their grade in school. Because he knows that if implemeted GY is 100% never going to happen. Players will all be the same age on the field and calls for implementing GY will be ignored.

No, you are off here.

The GY guy wants kids forced to play on grade. He can't drop making rules grade based where now grades are irrelevant, hates RAE, wants SY+ BS because it forces GY, etc. Nobody else wants GY but him.

I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. They could replace them all with ID sessions if they wanted. But there have been rumors of changes although I don't think anybody is advocating for changes or against here.

Come on just be honest...

"I don't think anybody cares about showcases and they don't matter to the age group discussion because they should just be exhibitions. "

Well said GY guy. We all know you want GY at showcases so your kid can play down on team with players 1-2 years younger.

Can you cite someone asking for grades at Showcases? I do not recall anyone. Thanks.

Every collge recruiter and coach.

Ok, so nobody on this thread then.

And the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases.

Basically everyone but you

Again, can you cite someone?

the parents that want their kid to get recruited and not have to worry about players 1-2 years older playing down on the team they paid for at showcases

Can you cite someone on this thread? Cite = quote (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.

You dont get it. Nobody wants GY in soccer. You might not see it in this thread as much but 99% of parents dont post here.

You keep lighting nudging GY and think that people dont notice. They do notice and they dont want GY in youth club soccer.

People do want SY 8/1-7/31 with a rule that says younger players must play on rhe team thats their grade in school. This gives the same end result. All players on field are the same grade in school. Which is what college coaches and recruiters want. But keeps teams seperate (doesnt allow older players to play down) which protects the investment parents make to play club soccer.

People don't want a rule forcing kids to play up. They only want the flexibility to do so -- which they get with Aug-Jul, because players can always play up an age group when it makes sense. Forcing up only would cause more problems that the transition doesn't need, because not all younger players have the ability play with older kids. Forcing up takes opportunities away from kids in the age group because teams/clubs would have no choice but to roster them. Forcing up potentially disadvantages the younger kids who may then quit sooner (a few who make it may be really strong but others on the margin would may have developed better playing in their age group). And finally, forcing up introduces the idea that grade is integral in youth soccer, laying the groundwork for a push to GY in general down the road. The best way to avoid that is never making a rule in the first place.

Can both of you GY debaters take a break? Seriously you both need to get a life.