Get ready folks

[Carlsbad7]

There's a way to solve all the SY issues.

1. Make the SY cutoff 9/1
2. Players born 9/1 to 7/1 the next year only need a qualifying birth cert.
3. Players born 7/1 to 9/1 need a qualifying birth cert AND proof of grade enrolled in school.

What this does is spread the cutoff date over 2 months before 9/1 depending on the grade enrolled in school.

Positives...
- Completely gets rid of trapped players
- Doesn't allow playing down even if your birthdate is within the eligibility window but you're not in the correct grade.
- Allows SY leagues with different school start dates typically from different states to play against each other
--Acccomodates players that move from one cutoff date to another cutoff date SY regional league
- All players on the field will be in the same grade
- Protects against GY

Potential Negatives...
- 14 month eligability window when SY leagues from different states with different school start dates play each other. (If you're playing a team with the same cutoff date as yours it's a 12 month eligibility window)
- Additional requirement for clubs to maintain a record of grade enrolled in school for players born 7/1 to 9/1
- Parents could hold back 7/1 to 9/1 birthdate players that started school a year early but are the the same age as players a grade down in school.

 

[SoccerSF]

There's a way to solve all the SY issues.

1. Make the SY cutoff 9/1
2. Players born 9/1 to 7/1 the next year only need a qualifying birth cert.
3. Players born 7/1 to 9/1 need a qualifying birth cert AND proof of grade enrolled in school.

What this does is spread the cutoff date over 2 months before 9/1 depending on the grade enrolled in school.

Positives...
- Completely gets rid of trapped players
- Doesn't allow playing down even if your birthdate is within the eligibility window but you're not in the correct grade.
- Allows SY leagues with different school start dates typically from different states to play against each other
--Acccomodates players that move from one cutoff date to another cutoff date SY regional league
- All players on the field will be in the same grade
- Protects against GY

Potential Negatives...
- 14 month eligability window when SY leagues from different states with different school start dates play each other. (If you're playing a team with the same cutoff date as yours it's a 12 month eligibility window)
- Additional requirement for clubs to maintain a record of grade enrolled in school for players born 7/1 to 9/1
- Parents could hold back 7/1 to 9/1 birthdate players that started school a year early but are the the same age as players a grade down in school.

Does this capture kids born 7/1 to 9/1 who did not start Kindergarten right after turning 5 in a 9/1 cutoff state (a very common scenario)? If not, it does not eliminate all trapped players.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Does this capture kids born 7/1 to 9/1 who did not start Kindergarten right after turning 5 in a 9/1 cutoff state (a very common scenario)? If not, it does not eliminate all trapped players.

Yes it does.

Any player born between 7/1 and 9/1 who is in the same grade as those born 9/1 to 7/1 the next year can play with that grade.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

@Carlsbad7 - Your proposal is essentially the Lacrosse 15-mo schedule, except making it 14-mo and doing 7/1, instead of 6/1 as lacrosse does:


As discussed ad nauseum, while of course anything's possible, it requires additional grade info from those affected, and it chooses to mainly reward kids (and parents) in edge cases for skirting rules, rather than instead giving credit for playing with your normally assigned age-appropriate grade.

 

[Carlsbad7]

@Carlsbad7 - Your proposal is essentially the Lacrosse 15-mo schedule, except making it 14-mo and doing 7/1, instead of 6/1 as lacrosse does:

View attachment 24672
As discussed ad nauseum, while of course anything's possible, it requires additional grade info from those affected, and it chooses to mainly reward kids (and parents) in edge cases for skirting rules, rather than instead giving credit for playing with your normally assigned age-appropriate grade.

Correct, but trading 2 months for completely eliminating trapped players seems reasonable.

Put another way only 2 months of players can cheat. And, this is only allowed to accommodate players with their exact same birthdate but from some wacky school district start date.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Right - but the proper way to gauge reasonableness of the proposed date IMO isn't to compare "we had X trapped players before, we resolved them with this date change, and now have almost none". It's "we had X trapped players before, we resolved them with this date change, and now this many are left (with a 6/1 - 8/31 early birthdate). Of that subset, 95% of them are "cheating", and 5% of them moved in to a district with a later cutoff date than when they first entered school. Is it worth making the accommodations necessary to deal with / reward that subset, or not.

Lacrosse, being private-school heavy, and by all accounts a much wealthier sport than soccer, evidently thinks yes. I'm not sure it's the same calculus for other sports.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Right - but the proper way to gauge reasonableness of the proposed date IMO isn't to compare "we had X trapped players before, we resolved them with this date change, and now have almost none". It's "we had X trapped players before, we resolved them with this date change, and now this many are left (with a 6/1 - 8/31 early birthdate). Of that subset, 95% of them are "cheating", and 5% of them moved in to a district with a later cutoff date than when they first entered school. Is it worth making the accommodations necessary to deal with / reward that subset, or not.

Lacrosse, being private-school heavy, and by all accounts a much wealthier sport than soccer, evidently thinks yes. I'm not sure it's the same calculus for other sports.

When it comes to "cheating" to play down or holding your kid back or regrading. In the example I provided you won't see it happening until around u14. Before this they would be the youngest 2 months on the team. Because of this RAE will weed most of the younger players out before they get to u14.

People don't get soccer crazy until the big nationwide leagues kick in around u14.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Sort of, sure. The only ages where this matters is about from 12-15. Any younger, who cares. Any older - you need to be comfortable with playing with older/bigger/faster players, so size discrepancies are part of the sport. But even so, it shouldn't be minimized - as at those ages where it does matter - it can have a very significant effect on fair play and team strength; maintaining and following rules/regulations are what allow for a consistent platform for competition.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Sort of, sure. The only ages where this matters is about from 12-15. Any younger, who cares. Any older - you need to be comfortable with playing with older/bigger/faster players, so size discrepancies are part of the sport. But even so, it shouldn't be minimized - as at those ages where it does matter - it can have a very significant effect on fair play and team strength; maintaining and following rules/regulations are what allow for a consistent platform for competition.

Also cheating to play down only matters at the highest level. Nobody else cares.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Also cheating to play down only matters at the highest level. Nobody else cares.

I'd push back on this a bit. There are kids that are obviously too old playing on Bronze teams (what is the equivalent of that, Flight 3, or 4?), and it infuriates the parents of any opposing team. We'd all agree that it's absolutely ludicrous that parents are knowingly cheating on a soccer team of 10-year-olds, that is 5+ levels down from the pointy end, as it shouldn't matter. But they do. Age brackets for the league, any league, should be enforced consistently at all levels of play, not just the highest.

 

[Carlsbad7]

I'd push back on this a bit. There are kids that are obviously too old playing on Bronze teams (what is the equivalent of that, Flight 3, or 4?), and it infuriates the parents of any opposing team. We'd all agree that it's absolutely ludicrous that parents are knowingly cheating on a soccer team of 10-year-olds, that is 5+ levels down from the pointy end, as it shouldn't matter. But they do. Age brackets for the league, any league, should be enforced consistently at all levels of play, not just the highest.

Agreed if leagues did something like what I proposed then didn't police the cheaters it will quickly slip into GY.

Which BTW is what happened with Lacrosse. There's actually much more to it with Lacrosse than leagues not policing/enforcing the rules. But for clubs issues started when leagues don't enforce the rules.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Agreed if leagues did something like what I proposed then didn't police the cheaters it will quickly slip into GY.

Which BTW is what happened with Lacrosse. There's actually much more to it with Lacrosse than leagues not policing/enforcing the rules. But for clubs issues started when leagues don't enforce the rules.

To provide more detail...

Field Lacrosse started at private high schools and colleges. These groups are traditionally GY. What this means is private schools and colleges have all the power and make all the decisions. Clubs are a graft onto what already existed.

Soccer started with clubs and leagues then worked it's way into schools. What this means is clubs have all the power and traditionally you clubs group players per 12 month age group. Leagues and clubs control how youth players play and they just happen to choose the format that makes them the most $$$.

 

[CAZZZ]

Also cheating to play down only matters at the highest level. Nobody else cares.

It is not cheating. There is a name for it. It is called biobanding.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

It is not cheating. There is a name for it. It is called biobanding.

Ha! That's what people should do. Just call it "self biobanding", and maybe people won't think that they're cheating anymore. /s

MLS N is the only league that has tried to implement this, and it hasn't worked out terribly well in meeting its goals (allowing a few who are physically developing more slowly than their peers to play down until they catch up), as once on that track the kids are almost never able to excel at their actual age level again.

 

[Carlsbad7]

It is not cheating. There is a name for it. It is called biobanding.

MLSN biobanding = 24 month variance

What I proposed = 14 month variance

SY default = 12 month variance

 

[CAZZZ]

Ha! That's what people should do. Just call it "self biobanding", and maybe people won't think that they're cheating anymore. /s

MLS N is the only league that has tried to implement this, and it hasn't worked out terribly well in meeting its goals (allowing a few who are physically developing more slowly than their peers to play down until they catch up), as once on that track the kids are almost never able to excel at their actual age level again.

Ha! That's what people should do. Just call it "self biobanding", and maybe people won't think that they're cheating anymore. /s

MLS N is the only league that has tried to implement this, and it hasn't worked out terribly well in meeting its goals (allowing a few who are physically developing more slowly than their peers to play down until they catch up), as once on that track the kids are almost never able to excel at their actual age level again.
[/QUOTE]

Compared to MLSN biobanding, it is laughable to see ECNL parents freak out about the incoming 9/1 cutoff.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Compared to MLSN biobanding, it is laughable to see ECNL parents freak out about the incoming 9/1 cutoff.

I dunno - I think both groups are equally easy to poke fun at when it comes to things like this. I'm not sure which is on shakier ground when they try to justify their own silliness.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

MLSN biobanding = 24 month variance (limited to 3 per age group, need to be individually approved by MLS N leadership)

What I proposed = 14 month variance

SY default = 12 month variance

(bolding/italics are my edits)

MLS N tries to limit misuse of this by only approving 3 per team, and everyone has to apply individually. It's not clear if you are proposing the same type of limits for over age kids in ECNL, or not.

 

[Carlsbad7]

MLS N tries to limit misuse of this by only approving 3 per team, and everyone has to apply individually. It's not clear if you are proposing the same type of limits for over age kids in ECNL, or not.

View attachment 24682

No I am not

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

So it's not apples to apples. Justifying increasing the window "because MLS N does it", but not incorporating the relatively strict limits they put on it to keep it rare, isn't as clear a comparison.

 

[Carlsbad7]

So it's not apples to apples. Justifying increasing the window "because MLS N does it", but not incorporating the relatively strict limits they put on it to keep it rare, isn't as clear a comparison.

All I'm interested in is...
1. Address all trapped players in SY
2. Have all players on the field be one grade in SY
3. Not allow GY into SY

The other "benefits" of what I proposed are just nice to haves.

I'm not looking to do a 1to1 comparison with any other league or grouping.