Get ready folks

Mosafie said:
Not the 2012 born after the 8/2012 cut off date. Only the early year born 2012s play with the 13s.

Each Birth year will get cut in half.

Those born after August have to play up with the next birth year. Jan-July birth play down.
Click to expand...
Players born on/after August 1, 2012 will be able to play with 2013's.

2012 | August, September, October, November, December
2013 | January, February, March, April, May, June, July
 
I really hope this takes effect next season and not the its approved but we are delaying its implementation a year to help everyone deal with the change.

If they do the latter lets hope they are smart enough to allow the younger age groups to go forward instead of disrupting 7/8 year olds after there first year playing competitive when we know the change is coming.
 
The first real opportunity that the change can be made is for the 2025/2026 season, as the 2024/2025 season is underway right now and will wrap up in June. If it goes through, I'd guess it makes sense that the 2025/2026 season, starting Aug 2025, is the kickoff for these new teams with 8/1 cutoffs. I don't see how it can be done sooner - and I also don't see what the benefit would be for it to be delayed another entire year, for the 2026/2027 season.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
The first real opportunity that the change can be made is for the 2025/2026 season, as the 2024/2025 season is underway right now and will wrap up in June. If it goes through, I'd guess it makes sense that the 2025/2026 season, starting Aug 2025, is the kickoff for these new teams with 8/1 cutoffs. I don't see how it can be done sooner - and I also don't see what the benefit would be for it to be delayed another entire year, for the 2026/2027 season.
Click to expand...
I agree with you so fingers crossed it doesn't end up getting implemented for 2026/2027. I know tryouts for younger age groups in Socal for 2025/2026 are coming up soon (early Dec). This is pre announcement of decision which comes by EoY.

Does anyone know the historic reason they do this? I assume it is to catch players before spring rec season sign up opens?
 
Mosafie said:
Not the 2012 born after the 8/2012 cut off date. Only the early year born 2012s play with the 13s.

Each Birth year will get cut in half.

Those born after August have to play up with the next birth year. Jan-July birth play down.
Click to expand...
Early year 12’s will play with late year 11’s
 
TeamDadJokes said:
View attachment 23500

POV of all the parents of trapped players watching parents of January through July kids all of a sudden concerned that their kid is going to no longer be the oldest and might be disenfranchised meanwhile you’ve been dealing with your kid being the youngest since the change in 2017…
Click to expand...
The issue right now is that different age groups have different coaches and the change from BY to SY hasn't been implemented yet.

Using a G2010 trapped player as an example. The 2010 coaches will give tryouts but the 2011 coaches won't. At least not yet because the change hasn't officially occurred and nobody knows how it will be implemented.

There's also interleague tryout rules and changing clubs mid season is usually not encouraged.

But yes, 2010 trapped players that have had to deal with always being the youngest on their teams are drooling at the opportunity to wax the floor with 2011s.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
It's not rocket science, but as said in prior pages, the complication is IMO one of the advantages of the existing BY setup. It's much harder for coaches/parents/clubs to feign ignorance.
Click to expand...
It really isn't rocket science. After a little adjustment, people will get used to it just like they are used to it in travel baseball. And if they don't or don't want to take 15 seconds to think about it, there will likely be charts/calculators all over the place.

Where it could get complicated is if different organizations use different cut-off dates (e.g. some Aug 1, others Sep 1). Hopefully that won't be the case. In youth baseball for example, Little League has a different cut-off date than the travel ball dates (this may differ by geography). And I believe different travel ball organizations have different dates as well. So you end up having players who might be on a 13U team for one and 14U team for another (without playing up or down on either). You also have friends who can be on the same team for one org. and can't with another org. Talk about confusing. But youth baseball is much more fragmented than youth soccer so I hope this isn't the case for soccer. If it is, there will likely be a bit of feigned ignorance as suggested.
 
Last edited:
Rollonyoubears said:
US Club Soccer sent out an email to coaches and staff today of our club stating that the next US Board of Directors meeting is on 11/22 and they anticipate this decision to be on the agenda, with a formal and public decision by the end of the calendar year.

US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer, AYSO statement on forthcoming U.S. Soccer decision regarding age group formation by school year vs. calendar year​

US Club Soccer, US Youth Soccer and AYSO members and participants,

In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change age group formation by school year (Aug. 1-July 31) vs. calendar year (Jan. 1-Dec. 31). Since the change was made, we have been reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels.

Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the request of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision. We support these efforts and appreciate their approach to engage Organizational Members, leagues and clubs in collecting feedback. Additionally, US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have solicited and shared additional feedback with one another in an effort to make the most informed and appropriate decision for our sport.

US Youth Soccer, US Club Soccer and AYSO have been in constant communication on the topic, recognizing the importance of consistency across the three biggest youth soccer organizations in America. US Youth Soccer’s and US Club Soccer’s leadership teams have met in person multiple times, most recently in September at the US Youth Soccer Grassroots Symposium in Salt Lake City. Additionally, we welcome the involvement of other U.S. Soccer Organizational Members.

We believe that any decisions should be made as a collective with as many youth organizations as possible, and it is our intention to do so.

As chair and vice chair of the U.S. Soccer Technical Development Committee and Youth Representatives on the Board of Directors, Mike Cullina (US Club Soccer CEO) and Louis Mateus (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors member) are directly involved in the conversation and recommendation to U.S. Soccer’s Board of Directors. As chair of the Youth Council and Youth Representative on the Board of Directors, Tina Rincon (US Youth Soccer Board of Directors chair) is also actively engaged.

The next U.S. Soccer Board of Directors meeting is Nov. 22, 2024. We expect this topic to be on the agenda for that meeting and, consequently, a formal and public decision by the end of the calendar year.

As always, thank you for your passion for the sport and commitment to our athletes.
​

​
​
Skip Gilbert
US Youth Soccer
Mike Cullina
US Club Soccer
Doug Ryan
AYSO National President

Click to expand...
You can read whatever you want into this, but I can't help but think this is a colossal waste of time and energy. Cutoff date is not the problem with youth soccer, and this distracts from the true issues. All this does is illustrate how misguided our US soccer organizations are.
 
j2five said:
Where it could get complicated is if different organizations use different cut-off dates (e.g. some Aug 1, others Sep 1). Hopefully that won't be the case.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. Even if every single soccer organization changed the date to the exact same cut-off with the same rules, a significant issue remains that school-year cutoffs for grade in the US vary across geography, from as early as Aug 1 to as late as Sep 30. There is no 1 date that aligns with the school calendar, as there are many variations. While any cut-off in that stretch leaves less kids in a situation where their soccer year differs from their school year (currently most all Aug --> Dec kids), it doesn't fully solve the issue. That's one reason why a Jan 1 cut-off was harder to argue against, as it is defined the same for all.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
That's the thing. Even if every single soccer organization changed the date to the exact same cut-off with the same rules, a significant issue remains that school-year cutoffs for grade in the US vary across geography, from as early as Aug 1 to as late as Sep 30. There is no 1 date that aligns with the school calendar, as there are many variations. While any cut-off in that stretch leaves less kids in a situation where their soccer year differs from their school year (currently most all Aug --> Dec kids), it doesn't fully solve the issue. That's one reason why a Jan 1 cut-off was harder to argue against, as it is defined the same for all.
Click to expand...
For your reading pleasure...

Why did we set the cutoff date to July 1? – Tilden School

www.tildenschool.org www.tildenschool.org

There's three ways to solve the issue...
1. Ignore it and just do Aug 1st
2. Let clubs in different geos define the cutoff date
3. Provide waivers for players that are born before Aug 1st

This is assuming you want players to play with kids in their grade at school.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
That's the thing. Even if every single soccer organization changed the date to the exact same cut-off with the same rules, a significant issue remains that school-year cutoffs for grade in the US vary across geography, from as early as Aug 1 to as late as Sep 30. There is no 1 date that aligns with the school calendar, as there are many variations. While any cut-off in that stretch leaves less kids in a situation where their soccer year differs from their school year (currently most all Aug --> Dec kids), it doesn't fully solve the issue. That's one reason why a Jan 1 cut-off was harder to argue against, as it is defined the same for all.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is the term "school-year". If you take that out of the equation, it's simpler. The old cutoff is Jan 1. The new cutoff is Aug 1. Same for all.

As for school-year variability, this applies regardless of the cutoff date. in the old cutoff, the number of trapped players varied by geography based on the local school year. In the new system, its the same...the number of trapped players will vary by geography based on the local school year. The difference is there will be a lot fewer trapped players with Aug 1 vs Jan 1. Yes Aug 1 doesn't fully solve the trapped player problem, but it significantly reduces it.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
1. Ignore it and just do Aug 1st
Click to expand...
This is almost certainly going to be the answer. There isn't a stated goal of allowing 100% of kids to play with their grade, while this change makes it more likely for them to be able to.
j2five said:
I think the problem is the term "school-year". If you take that out of the equation, it's simpler. The old cutoff is Jan 1. The new cutoff is Aug 1. Same for all.
Click to expand...
Sure - but all of the communication, including this most recent letter, talks about making this change (or more correctly, change back), so it better aligns with school year. As much as you or I would want to be more precise and make it clear that it has nothing to do with grade, and is 8/1/X, it's not how it would be discussed or thought of by most.
j2five said:
As for school-year variability, this applies regardless of the cutoff date. in the old cutoff, the number of trapped players varied by geography based on the local school year. In the new system, its the same...the number of trapped players will vary by geography based on the local school year. The difference is there will be a lot fewer trapped players with Aug 1 vs Jan 1. Yes Aug 1 doesn't fully solve the trapped player problem, but it significantly reduces it.
Click to expand...
Right - it makes the population affected significantly less, but then it also makes the options for that population less attractive/available. If there are only 1 or 2 months worth of trapped players compared to 5-6, clubs aren't likely to expend much effort to come up with specific solutions for them. They can switch teams to temporarily play down, or they can sit for half a season while most kids born in the other 10-11 months are busy.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
Right - it makes the population affected significantly less, but then it also makes the options for that population less attractive/available. If there are only 1 or 2 months worth of trapped players compared to 5-6, clubs aren't likely to expend much effort to come up with specific solutions for them. They can switch teams to temporarily play down, or they can sit for half a season while most kids born in the other 10-11 months are busy.
Click to expand...
If you follow this through, you are talking about making is less attractive/available to kids in 1-2 months versus it currently being less attractive/available to kids in 5-6 months - that's surely a win. I didn't see any solutions for any trapped players for the BY change, so I wouldn't expect any for this change.

Assuming the statements about participation being down since the BY change are true, the clubs, you would think, will be happy with the change as it means numbers go up so more kids, more teams, more money ... and they get to "blame" some faceless bureaucrats into the bargain!
 
Do kids even care about playing with friends from school? AYSO doesn’t even let you pick who is on your team. You are underestimating kids’ ability to make new friends.

If they really want to get more kids to play soccer, just mandate all clubs have a free play day per week where kids can just show up and play pick up games.
 
Jamisfoes said:
Do kids even care about playing with friends from school? AYSO doesn’t even let you pick who is on your team. You are underestimating kids’ ability to make new friends.

If they really want to get more kids to play soccer, just mandate all clubs have a free play day per week where kids can just show up and play pick up games.
Click to expand...

Volunteer as DC for your local AYSO. You'll be up to your ears in buddy forms while you try to make teams.

Kids absolutely care about playing with their school and church friends.
 
whatithink said:
If you follow this through, you are talking about making is less attractive/available to kids in 1-2 months versus it currently being less attractive/available to kids in 5-6 months - that's surely a win. I didn't see any solutions for any trapped players for the BY change, so I wouldn't expect any for this change.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, and believe that you are correct. It's just that there are enough trapped players now that clubs have specific options for them rather than let so many sit idle. If that number goes below a threshold, but is still not zero, those left may have even less options than they have now.
Jamisfoes said:
Do kids even care about playing with friends from school? AYSO doesn’t even let you pick who is on your team. You are underestimating kids’ ability to make new friends.
Click to expand...
We both have to assume that they have more data on this than we do, from survey results to direct feedback and opinions from club operators.
Jamisfoes said:
If they really want to get more kids to play soccer, just mandate all clubs have a free play day per week where kids can just show up and play pick up games.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a reasonable suggestion - but extra field access isn't free or even available in many geographies. Of course it could be done - but such a mandate costs money, and some clubs may feel that this isn't workable for their situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top