Is anyone talking to their ECNL club directors / ECNL leadership / ECNL podcast about these age cutoff issues? And US Club Soccer as the umbrella org? The window to be heard is narrowing fast. I’ve sent emails to lots of the key stakeholders across the youth soccer platform and so far have only heard back from Skip Gilbert at SF Youth Soccer. But we need a broader dialogue and channel to the voices who actually have an impact on these decisions.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Umm - you realize that they (and everybody else) always has the ability to play up. Call it a 15 month cohort, a 30 month cohort, or a 22-year cohort. If you are under <this> age, you can play in <this bracket> and any bracket above it that will have you. This has always been the case. This isn't a new (or coherent) idea.
What you're basically proposing is that the summer kids can play down in age (they would be too old otherwise, but are in the lower grade because they started late).
Moving the actual cutoff to 7/1 - means that the oldest kids are now 7/1 (duh), and the youngest kids are now born 6/30 (and are playing in the next older age bracket). And the ones 12 months younger, born 7/1-8/31 the following year, now have the unenviable position of either playing down a year so they can compete, or now being up to 14-15 months younger than the kids now allowed in the same bracket.
Nothing here is gained for free. The lacrosse model makes it a 15-month calendar, essentially from Jun 1 to Aug 31 the following year, with a hard stop - requiring grade proof for a summer kid who chooses to play down.
“And the ones 12 months younger, born 7/1-8/31 the following year, now have the unenviable position of either playing down a year so they can compete, or now being up to 15 months younger than the kids now allowed in the same bracket.
Nothing here is gained for free. The lacrosse model makes it a 15-month calendar, essentially from Jun 1 to Aug 31 the following year, with a hard stop - requiring grade proof for a summer kid who chooses to play down.”
The younger summer bday kids have a better alternative if they don’t want to play up with their grade (play down and be oldest on the team) than the older summer bday kids who would be forced to play up a grade and be the very youngest, too.
Following the lacrosse model and requiring grade proof to play down seems the best option.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Disagree completely for all the stated reasons above. Bookmark this thread and we'll see what happens soon enough.
soccermom24
BRONZE
There will always be a sample of the cohort in an unenviable position in a 12 month age group. But it sounds like my suggestion is close to the right answer here. Since you can't disprove that everything i suggested would make it best as possible for as many players as possible. Seems to offer the best chances for majority of players to play with classmates, and therefore increasing participation, while also minimizing advantages to be gained by disingenuous players. Thank you.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
As expected, you don't understand the issues. First you said that it would still be only a 12-month age group. I think you've come to realize your mistake. You then said you didn't have specific criticism for why it wasn't a fabulous idea. It was laid out, repeatedly. And then you post that it is still the right answer.
This is the type of feedback that the organizations have to deal with when making changes like this.
soccermom24
BRONZE
I've never suggested anything but a 12 month age group. What mistake have I come to realize?
There will always be edge cases filing exceptions (I believe 7/1 would decrease the amount of exceptions needing to be filed, which is one goal I would have in all this, especially since no one can even guarantee exceptions would be made). It would also decrease the amount of restrictions placed on players and allow for more freedom to choose what's best for each child.
You still have not given any specifics on how any of the goals looking to be achieved wouldn't be achieved under my suggestion. All you've said is we can't guarantee the outcome were hoping for. (Obviously we can't guarantee ANY system will work perfectly).
I guess I was hoping that you would be able to point out how my suggestion of 7/1 would make the current situation worse, or how it would be worse than 9/1. But you have failed to do that.
FWIW, I have no skin in this game based on my children and their placement in the system. I simply am trying to partake in a healthy debate to help everyone involved come to the best decision to try to reach as many kids in America as possible, with the fewest deterrents as possible.
soccermom24
BRONZE
Also, I apologize, but I thought the issues we are trying to address are trapped players, and participation (especially in the beginning age groups). Please let me know if this is incorrect, and if so, what the issues we are trying to address actually are.
Re “now have the unenviable position of either playing down a year so they can compete, or now being up to 14-15 months younger than the kids now allowed in the same bracket.”
This option is better than being trapped and unable to play at all in 8th grade or unable to play with classmates. Just go back and read how painful the detailed posts are from parents on this thread who have trapped kids.
Might be worthwhile to check your data and logic again if you are referring to me. I have been here since 2023 before any age discussions.
Now you know how I feel. I had EOTL, Long Game, Surf Futbol, Fact, tenacious, evilgoalie21, Husker Du, 14knots, espola, Dad4, Jeter is not the best, Rainbow Unicorn and many others after poor crush. All I asked for in youth soccer was fairness, truth, equality, merit based, no cheating, no lying, no pay for play and no sex with coach for extra play time or sex for a spot on the team.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
And how many of them will admit that their kids have July/August birthdays.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Sure - but bending the rules for all to benefit a few (and penalize others), is almost never the right answer (except of course in the eyes of those specifically affected).
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I'm just here to point out people's illogical thinking. I have plenty of material to work with.
Who is being penalized?
Why not embrace a solution that maximizes to the greatest extent possible the kids that can play with their grade in conjunction with a move to school year registration? It is clear there is a split across the country between August kids enrolling right at 5 or enrolling a year later, even in states with 9/1 school cutoffs. Letting all August kids (the older ones and the younger ones for their grade) play with their enrolled grade is a reasonable solution and puts the best interests of the kids as the central focus, as it should be in youth sports.
I do have an August kid (2 actually) but even if I didn’t I would still support maximizing the number of kids who can play with their enrolled grade.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
If the 12-month year is pushed 2 months ahead of the actual grade divisions to take care of those oldest who started school late instead of following the deadline (hard to do in public in some states, very common in other states), the 2 months of kids on the youngest end now are pushed to either play down with the younger grade, or choose to play an age up, up to 14 months younger than the oldest in their "soccer grade".
The point is by minimizing those who play in a different grade from their school grade, it makes intuitive sense to make the age rules for both school grade and soccer grade as close as possible. Allowing leeway on the soccer grade to help those who don't conform, hurts those on the other end who do conform, unless the cohort is spread to longer than 12 months - which has its own issues.
Not sure why people are not understanding this basic fact, but here we are.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Uh, sure. Nobody is against maximizing the number of kids who can play with their enrolled grade. Doing so by making the "soccer grade" to be the "school grade + a couple months" isn't the way to it, and doing it that way most certainly is choosing to favor some while hurting others. In this case, favoring those who mainly didn't follow the rules in the first place.
Which is always the point - whatever date is chosen will favor some and disfavor others. The loudest are usually the ones who have just realized that it now makes their kid on the younger end.
Does a 2-month swing make that much of a difference, if we did have a 14-month window in play? So many on these message boards claim all really strong players with college/pro potential are playing up a year or more anyway, so what difference would it make to those (very few when compared to the total number of kids playing soccer in this country) select kids? And by having that 14-month window in play once the move the SY registration occurs, the kids who are in soccer to compete, sure, but even more than that who just love the sport and find a lot of joy in playing with their peers/classmates/friends can have an opportunity to do that?
DeaconSoccer12
BRONZE
I think the reason an 8/1 cutoff makes more sense than 9/1 is because there are at least a handful of states with 8/1 or 8/15 kindergarten cutoff (need to look it up again for exact numbers). I dont believe an 8/1 date should be used to cater to kids who live in a state with a 9/1 cutoff but are "redshirted" because they have August or July birthdays.
Full transparency - I have a kid with a 9/1 birthday and I about spit out my drink when the US Club soccer guy on the podcast said 9/1 was the date they were going to use because I thought for sure it would be 8/1.
Am I thrilled my kid will be able to drop down a year and play with her grade level peers next season if that is in her best interest? Of course! She is a 2014 so will be able to choose whether to play up and move to 11v11 or move to her grade level and play another year of 9v9. As a GK I think it may be beneficial to have another year on the small goals and move to a higher level team possibly.
Full transparency - I have a kid with a 9/1 birthday and I about spit out my drink when the US Club soccer guy on the podcast said 9/1 was the date they were going to use because I thought for sure it would be 8/1.
Am I thrilled my kid will be able to drop down a year and play with her grade level peers next season if that is in her best interest? Of course! She is a 2014 so will be able to choose whether to play up and move to 11v11 or move to her grade level and play another year of 9v9. As a GK I think it may be beneficial to have another year on the small goals and move to a higher level team possibly.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
It's always the first go-to argument when trying to bend the rules. "Come on, it's only a little bit, and the people affected negatively by this decision will only get hurt a little bit." "And it affects them and not who I'm advocating for so it doesn't really matter anyway"
Those affected kids are either hurt by having to play soccer in a different grade than their school grade (which we're ostensibly trying to avoid, as they have to find a new team at least once if not twice), or are a year or more younger than the kids given the special dispensation for not following the rules.
You can't get your drivers license if you are almost the right age, you can't drink until you actually turn 21, and you can't get a free cupcake at Chucky Cheese if it's not your birthday (well, you can probably lie about that one). In the current context, a kid now born on 1/1 at 2 AM is fortunate enough to be the oldest on any calendar-year based team, while the poor sap born 10 PM the night before on 12/31 is going to be playing catchup all the way through. People are much more accepting of the Jan 1 cutoff than whatever the SY cutoff turns out to be - as CY it's much harder to justify any exception requests.