Do you have young kids lol. Of course it matters. Does it apply to all? Of course not. Does it apply to some kids? Definitely. I don't have the numbers so we can debate about how prevalent it is.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
By U8, AYSO wants balanced teams and good players can’t play together anymore.
Never an issue for my kid to play with people he doesn’t know. He plays with his friends at recess already. Does he want to play with his friends from school in club soccer, yes but only if they are good players. He has soccer friends, book club friends and video game friends. Not all of them need to be together for everything they do.
Yeah by 8-10, the ability to play with friends becomes harder, but not impossible. My 11 year old still does friend requests for football. For baseball, he knows he can't for travel baseball, but is able to for Pony and Little League to some extent.
The importance of playing with friends also decreases as a function of age and ability from what I've seen. I think families of more skilled players understand it's harder to stick with friends as competition increases, and thus are willing to de-prioritize the friendship part to play the game at higher levels.
But...most kids are starting sports at 5 or 6. And many are entering club at 7 or 8. For that age group, I would venture to guess that friendship is in the top 3 priorities for most kids, and #1 for some. Are there exceptions? Sure. Again, how many fall into which extreme and where along the spectrum between is up for debate until someone posts some research about it.
Last edited:
I agree. Maybe playing with school friends is a factor at the youngest ages of rec, but after that it's way down the priority list to play with school friends. I guess I don't understand how your teammates don't become friends?
You're right, that's how its being discussed. And that's part of the problem and none of us can change the prevailing narrative so it does make things more complicated. Agreed.
But at the same time, whether it's 1/1 or 8/1, it IS the same for all. In both scenarios, there will be variance in how it impacts one geography vs another based on school start date. BY cutoff isn't immune to that.
Double check my numbers...
For geographies with 8/1 school start, it changes it from 5 months of trapped players to 0 months.
For geographies with 9/1 school start, it changes it from 4 months of trapped players to 1 month.
As you stated, its significantly less. But for the population of Aug birthdays in geographies with 9/1 school start, does 8/1 cutoff really make it less attractive? Depends on how you look at it. For August birthday kids, they won't be playing with their classmates for the most part...BUT, they will be the oldest kid on the team and benefit from RAE. And if they are good enough and want to play with classmates, they might be able to play up. For those that can't play up and don't want to play with kids from the grade below, will some of them self-select out (or be weeded out)? I'm sure some will. And if you care about that, then you should really be against BY.
In BY, the percentage of trapped players is much bigger and the pool at risk of selecting/being weeded out is much bigger. And the statistics (other than NT level) indicate that is in fact happening. Also, in the current scenario, the second option of playing up is much more difficult for the Nov and Dec birthdays as the age-gap will be even larger when trying to play up a year.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Yes to all. If the goal is to minimize the effect of differing calendars, getting them as close as feasible, while making it actually implementable, makes sense - and 8/1 may in fact be the best choice.
But at the same time, 8/1 seems arbitrary (why not 7/1, or 9/1), while 1/1 is the beginning of the calendar year and how much of the rest of the world does it. Jan 1 doesn't have to be defended as a choice (as it was 7 years ago), as it is intuitively obvious.
I do think the shift in this direction (BY-->SY) now, compared to the shift in the other direction then (SY-->BY), will make it significantly harder for kids to just ignore the shift and play up. And when the change happened at that point, parents were surprised how quickly teams blew up and started rostering tied to the new cutoff - there's no reason the believe it wouldn't happen even more swiftly now.
But at the same time, 8/1 seems arbitrary (why not 7/1, or 9/1), while 1/1 is the beginning of the calendar year and how much of the rest of the world does it. Jan 1 doesn't have to be defended as a choice (as it was 7 years ago), as it is intuitively obvious.
I do think the shift in this direction (BY-->SY) now, compared to the shift in the other direction then (SY-->BY), will make it significantly harder for kids to just ignore the shift and play up. And when the change happened at that point, parents were surprised how quickly teams blew up and started rostering tied to the new cutoff - there's no reason the believe it wouldn't happen even more swiftly now.
Offside no S
BRONZE
Agreed. I think the disruption will be significant. And it will push some kids currently playing out of soccer. This, I believe, is the biggest reason against. I do think 8/1 makes more sense than 1/1, but is it worth the disruption? I think that's the debate. Personally, even though it may not sound like it, I'm 60/40 for the change but would be ok if it stayed 1/1.
"38 of 43 states have cutoffs that will not correspond with the 8/1 cutoff. 7 states have local district choice, so we don't know if this will affect them. But 38/50 is almost 40% will have automatic trapped players - so this shift isn't changing anything but who the trapped players are. There's also redshirted kids - they are growing in number and they won't be playing in their grad year either."
Not sure what you mean by 40%. But since you're using numbers and percentages, to say this shift isn't changing anything is false. It changes the number and % of players that fall into the trapped bucket. How?
For geographies with 8/1 school start, it changes it from 5 months of trapped players to 0 months.
For geographies with 9/1 school start, it changes it from 4 months of trapped players to 1 month.
As you pointed out, majority of states have 9/1 start. So majority of states will go from 4 months worth of trapped players to 1 month (minority from 5 to 0). Taking your 38 of 43 count as fact, and assuming equal distribution of population by state and equal distribution of participation by month (I know this is not true and should never assume, but makes this exercise easier), we go from 34% of players in the trapped bucket with 1/1 cutoff, down to 7% of players with 8/1 cutoff. Pretty significant decrease (~78%). RE: the assumptions part, even if all states had 9/1 school start, 8% would be trapped players with 8/1 cutoff.
(please check my math)
Not sure what you mean by 40%. But since you're using numbers and percentages, to say this shift isn't changing anything is false. It changes the number and % of players that fall into the trapped bucket. How?
For geographies with 8/1 school start, it changes it from 5 months of trapped players to 0 months.
For geographies with 9/1 school start, it changes it from 4 months of trapped players to 1 month.
As you pointed out, majority of states have 9/1 start. So majority of states will go from 4 months worth of trapped players to 1 month (minority from 5 to 0). Taking your 38 of 43 count as fact, and assuming equal distribution of population by state and equal distribution of participation by month (I know this is not true and should never assume, but makes this exercise easier), we go from 34% of players in the trapped bucket with 1/1 cutoff, down to 7% of players with 8/1 cutoff. Pretty significant decrease (~78%). RE: the assumptions part, even if all states had 9/1 school start, 8% would be trapped players with 8/1 cutoff.
(please check my math)
It's fewer than that.
Trapped players are kids who are born after the school deadline, but before the soccer deadline. August-Dec currently. Those kids end up being forced to play in an older age group than their peers. Then, Senior year, their soccer peers have all graduated, but they're still in HS. Nowhere to play, unless they repeat the U18/U19 season: the trap.
With Soccer 8/1 and school 9/1, you have players born after the soccer cutoff, but before the school cutoff. Those kids would end up playing in a younger age group than their school peers. Senior year, they are still U17. Not a trap.
The only trapped players would be redshirt kids, and kids in the two states with a school cutoff before August 01.
In rec it’s also way easier for kids to play up with their friends, because the skill level isn’t as important. AYSO also does 2 year groups so kids are playing up every other year anyway. Plus, rec usually has limits on how many friends you can group on the same team anyway.
At the higher levels, you’re less likely to play with school friends anyway.
I largely see it as a plus that you’re playing sports with different sets of kids and making different friends and such. Every trapped player I know thinks it’s a positive to hang and learn from the older kids whether they go to the same school or not.
A currently trapped 2010 player who rides the bench isn’t all the sudden going to be a top player on the equivalent 2011 team. Half the time, the younger team at club is even better than the older team.
Unnecessary disruption that will have marginal effect either way.
As far as participation goes, I’d guess its more people switching to cheaper activities: https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2022/costs-to-play-trends
There’s way too many factors that have changed since the birth year switch to single that out as the cause for a decline in participation.
Thanks for pointing that out. I still think of those players as "trapped" in the sense they aren't playing with their majority of kids in their grade. Maybe it should be called reverse trap lol since it creates the reverse problem for these kids. They would be in high school when 11/12th of the team is in middle school. They would be in recruiting year when 11/12th of the team would be one year away. As someone pointed out above, it will suck for them. Unless they play up. Or unless they focus on the upside, which is they will be oldest player on the team and have higher likelihood of standing out. The current trapped players (being younger) don't have that possible benefit.
Like the decline in youth sports participation post-Covid shutdowns. Athough, it's rebounding some.
whatithink
GOLD
For the top letter leagues, the play with friends thing is out. That said, one of my kids played on a good side, but not letter league. From U15 onwards, every year, kids left to play on other teams with their friends or dropped soccer, and kids on the team "recruited" their friends to play, inc. kids to play up, i.e. in their class in school. They were playing for fun. Coach/club were cool about it (playing up) as the kids meet the level needed (or close enough) and were filling the team up as players left.
Point being, if you want kids to keep playing soccer when they hit the older ages - who have no intention on a college path, i.e. the overwhelming majority - then it needs to be fun first.
What happens under the proposed new rule to a redshirted kid say born mid July when they their teammates graduate. That fall after the rest of team has graduated they are seniors and now their birthday falls before the 8/1 date. So they are too old. Can they still play down that senior year?
twoclubpapa
SILVER ELITE
There are some counties here in Georgia where kids start the school year in July. Neither 8/1 nor 9/1 handles the issue for these kids.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
It's not only common, it's the law. If the kid isn't born Sep 1 or later, they aren't able to start public school in that grade. When it comes to private schools, anything is possible, and many kids start quite early (and some are instead held back from the "normal" track, not only for academic reasons).
I assume they’ll still allow U19 Seniors to play somehow. It would kind of crazy if they said no.
But it’s all speculation until they release actual text. We still don’t know if they are thinking pure Aug 01, pure graduation year, or Aug 01 for youngers and grad year for HS.
If you are born between Aug 1 and Sept 1 you get the choice. Start and be yougest or wait a year and be oldest. Anecdotally most wait at least near me.
Its only after Sept 1 you are required by law to wait. In addition to private, the other scenario where this doesnt apply is if you move into CA from another state that let you start early.