Get ready folks

[Carlsbad7]

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…

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.

 

[j2five]

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.

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.

 

[watfly]

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

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.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

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.

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.

 

[Carlsbad7]

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.

For your reading pleasure...

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

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.

 

[j2five]

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.

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.

 

[whatithink]

Yes Aug 1 doesn't fully solve the trapped player problem, but it significantly reduces it.

It also better aligns socially for the kids and better aligns for those who want to try and play at the next level.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

1. Ignore it and just do Aug 1st

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[whatithink]

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.

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!

 

[Jamisfoes]

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.

 

[Zeke]

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.

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.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[j2five]

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.

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.

 

[Jamisfoes]

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.

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.

 

[j2five]

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.

 

[watfly]

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.

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?

 

[j2five]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

 

[Offside no S]

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.

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.

 

[j2five]

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.

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.