Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DA is dead. Clubs are reforming anyhow. Birth year groups are problematic (conflicts with other sports, fall birthday kids getting caught in dead times, off-cycle from other big sports).

It never worked well anyhow and should just be changed.

You’re an idiot

She was bummed that her kid, who was once older than everybody else, no longer is. Somebody has to be the youngest. Why was it okay when it was other kids but not when it's yours?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is thick. DA parents freaking out. The entitlement cracks me up. No they are not going to make a change because the EX DA people are worried about their kid making ECNL. There are many age groups and it has all worked out. You don't change back and forth every few years and no my kid didn't benefit is not part of the elites who are fighting about a new way to game the system.

Why would DA parents care? This is all about the u littles. Being a year older vs everyone else is great at u9-u12 at u15 does not matter as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DA is dead. Clubs are reforming anyhow. Birth year groups are problematic (conflicts with other sports, fall birthday kids getting caught in dead times, off-cycle from other big sports).

It never worked well anyhow and should just be changed.

You’re an idiot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the parents of the Jan-March kids are sure out in for e on this thread

I remember when they were putting down the parents with Sept-Dec born kids when they made the argument against birth year. Ha!

My kid isn’t in either thosebirth month groups actually, living through one age change was enough upheaval.

Anonymous wrote:It is thick. DA parents freaking out. The entitlement cracks me up. No they are not going to make a change because the EX DA people are worried about their kid making ECNL. There are many age groups and it has all worked out. You don't change back and forth every few years and no my kid didn't benefit is not part of the elites who are fighting about a new way to game the system.

Anonymous wrote:Well the parents of the Jan-March kids are sure out in for e on this thread

I remember when they were putting down the parents with Sept-Dec born kids when they made the argument against birth year. Ha!

Anonymous wrote:Well the parents of the Jan-March kids are sure out in for e on this thread

I remember when they were putting down the parents with Sept-Dec born kids when they made the argument against birth year. Ha!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

You are missing the point. The first change was traumatic but kids bonded with their new teammates as the years went by. No kid wants their team to be broken up again, and there isn't any compelling reason sufficient to justify the amount of disruption another age change would cause. If anything, it would cause soccer to lose kids.

My kids aren't such delicate flowers that they'd melt if their teams were restructured in a more common sense way.

Congratulations, if us soccer wants to make sure more kids drop out of the sport in the middle of a recession, a needless reshuffling of the age groups seems the perfect way to ensure that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

You are missing the point. The first change was traumatic but kids bonded with their new teammates as the years went by. No kid wants their team to be broken up again, and there isn't any compelling reason sufficient to justify the amount of disruption another age change would cause. If anything, it would cause soccer to lose kids.

My kids aren't such delicate flowers that they'd melt if their teams were restructured in a more common sense way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

You are missing the point. The first change was traumatic but kids bonded with their new teammates as the years went by. No kid wants their team to be broken up again, and there isn't any compelling reason sufficient to justify the amount of disruption another age change would cause. If anything, it would cause soccer to lose kids.

My kids aren't such delicate flowers that they'd melt if their teams were restructured in a more common sense way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me guess, you held your child back to give them the advantage and it does work that way and now your kid is upset you held them back.

They need to go by age. So glad some sports go by age. I have a younger kid in the grade and he does well but he cannot compete with a kid held back two years older.

For the last time because apparently a lot of you are very slow. Nobody is talking about going by grade year. The conversation is about aligning birth year by the school year, not using grade year. So, the birth year period would run Aug to Aug instead of Jan to Jan.

I have seen it said so many times in DCUM that DCUM'S anti-redshirt posters are incapable of basic math, and wow does that seem true.

"aligning to school year" but NOT for the purpose of aligning to grade year? Why? Guess your kid is one of the Sep-Dec birthdays who were adversely affected by the change.

Of course the attempt would be made to align with grade year if possible, outside of students held back or moved forward. If not, why not make the playing year Apr to Apr so my kid benefits.

As someone else said, there is no problem to solve here, except for the kids who suffered the first transition. No need to re-run that and force more kids to suffer another one.

There are multiple reasons why school year would be better:

- It makes recruiting easier on college coaches, who are typically trying to look quickly at a lot of kids on a team, because it significantly increase the odds that any single kid on a team being observed will be entering school at the right time, rather than a third of the kids being in a different school year. (Note for anti-redshirt people: under this model, kids who are redshirted would be penalized, not helped.)
- It doesn't create dead training zones for all fall-born kids.
- Teams are already significantly disrupted now so this is a good time to realign.
- It aligns better with HS soccer (which is increasingly important to college recruiting, and will be more so post-DA).

If you don't have kids that are college recruiting potential, birth year alone is fine, but for those that are serious about college, school year would be better.

You are missing the point. The first change was traumatic but kids bonded with their new teammates as the years went by. No kid wants their team to be broken up again, and there isn't any compelling reason sufficient to justify the amount of disruption another age change would cause. If anything, it would cause soccer to lose kids.