Get ready folks

[RandomSoccerFan]

Lacrosse is also a lot like basketball.

It's closely associated with private high schools who encourage parents to hold their kids back ("regrade") for better academics or ability to compete in sports (because they're older).

Allowing a larger range of ages to compete in club leagues makes sense because once you get to HS players on the varsity team might be 19 years old.

Makes sense. I cringe whenever I hear suggestions that sound like they want to run it more like basketball - as it's a complete clusterf*** in terms of age/grade verification, and it's clear to all involved. Moving soccer in any way nearer to that kind of set up is a recipe for failure - or at least an acknowledgement that having kids play within recommended age bands isn't important enough to actually make sure that they do.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Makes sense. I cringe whenever I hear suggestions that sound like they want to run it more like basketball - as it's a complete clusterf*** in terms of age/grade verification, and it's clear to all involved. Moving soccer in any way nearer to that kind of set up is a recipe for failure - or at least an acknowledgement that having kids play within recommended age bands isn't important enough to actually make sure that they do.

I agree, as a former lacrosse player I've seen the effects.

What happens is the top private high schools in the area monitor youth club leagues for talent. When they see someone they like they offer them a scholarship and that player gets to go to the super amazing private school for free. Lather rinse repeat over several years and the top private schools end up always winning. Private schools hold the keys to playing in college not clubs. Add in the "regrade" nonsense and you can see why they always win. If you think $$$ opens doors in youth soccer now wait until private high schools get control.

This is what the GY (grade year) people want to happen to youth soccer.

 

[SoccerSF]

I agree, as a former lacrosse player I've seen the effects.

What happens is the top private high schools in the area monitor youth club leagues for talent. When they see someone they like they offer them a scholarship and that player gets to go to the super amazing private school for free. Lather rinse repeat over several years and the top private schools end up always winning. Private schools hold the keys to playing in college not clubs. Add in the "regrade" nonsense and you can see why they always win. If you think $$$ opens doors in youth soccer now wait until private high schools get control.

This is what the GY (grade year) people want to happen to youth soccer.

Regrading wouldn’t happen if you require specific birth dates even with a 15 month range to accommodate summer birthdays. You can’t hold a kid back an entire year and still have them play with their grade in club soccer. Plus private high schools already recruit for soccer as well, that is not unique to lacrosse.

 

[soccermom24]

Lacrosse seems to allow June/July/Aug to flip up or down depending on grade - so yes - the youngest kid (born in June, playing down) can be 15 months younger than the oldest. Cut off date is 9/1. (link)

View attachment 24529View attachment 24530

They also have the standard 12 month band. No idea how many clubs/leagues have moved from one to the other and/or what they've found by doing so. Would also be good to have some $ info on how much the average player is paying their club, to see how much overhead that particular sport has become accustomed to in managing the overhead. My guess is the average lacrosse player in the US is spending significantly more on it than the average soccer player in the US, but it's only a guess.


You've got it backwards. They already have to provide birth certificate. It's the schooling docs to be added. Not only the collection of them, but the verification of all of the different options to check validity against whatever standards are laid out.



Your suggestion doesn't do #1 or #3. You can say that it does, but you can also say that any of this is likely to be implemented. None of it is more than a hopeful guess - and #3 specifically is quite hard to believe.

It does the 2nd and 4th, by making the soccer year 15 months instead of 12. An even easier suggestion that would also do #2 and #4 is to just stop collecting age data docs and trust that everyone will just play on the team they think is fair for their kid. There would be zero trapped players, every player could play with their grade, and nobody would be subject to any pesky date restrictions. (And they could drive themselves to practice from U12 on.)

The 15ish month cohort my idea would include kids on the youngest end of that 15 months choosing to play UP. So widening it in that way wouldn't make for unfair advantages. Whereas putting a hard stop at 9/1 and forcing exceptions to be filed in order to play DOWN an age group to remain with classmates, would then put the edges cases at an advantage as they would make up the top 3 months of that 15mo cohort.
Also my way wouldn't require clubs or schools to get involved at all. The only people who would want to play out of their class year would be opting to play up, requiring nothing on the administrative side of things.
My suggestion most likely would increase participation, as the top leaders in the industry nationwide have stated that their goal is to increase participation by increasing the amount of classmates that can play together. So, if my theory increases classmates ability to play together, we can hope that it should increase participation (the entire point of this switch to begin with).

And if we reduce the amount of trapped players at all (which you've already agreed my suggestion should help with), then you absolutely are reducing overhead for clubs. You also eliminate the overhead of filing exceptions, checking school enrollment, etc. You wouldn't need ANY exceptions filed, unless for some reason your school starts at a crazy time compared to the rest of your state, which should be rare enough to live with.

 

[SoccerSF]

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.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

The 15ish month cohort my idea would include kids on the youngest end of that 15 months choosing to play UP. So widening it in that way wouldn't make for unfair advantages. Whereas putting a hard stop at 9/1 and forcing exceptions to be filed in order to play DOWN an age group to remain with classmates, would then put the edges cases at an advantage as they would make up the top 3 months of that 15mo cohort.

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.

 

[SoccerSF]

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]

Following the lacrosse model and requiring grade proof to play down seems the best option.

Disagree completely for all the stated reasons above. Bookmark this thread and we'll see what happens soon enough.

 

[soccermom24]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Derek1800]

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.

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.

 

[Carlsbad7]

Interesting that the 3 (now four) user names I have on ignore are all working together on a single topic.

Also interesting that they all were created after July 2024.

Go spam/astroturf another forum with your bs.

 

[Derek1800]

Interesting that the 3 (now four) user names I have on ignore are all working together on a single topic.

Also interesting that they all were created after July 2024.

Go spam/astroturf another forum with your bs.

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.

 

[crush]

Interesting that the 3 (now four) user names I have on ignore are all working together on a single topic.

Also interesting that they all were created after July 2024.

Go spam/astroturf another forum with your bs.

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]

And how many of them will admit that their kids have July/August birthdays.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

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.

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]

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.

I'm just here to point out people's illogical thinking. I have plenty of material to work with.

 

[SoccerSF]

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).

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.