RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Then don't put them in a numbered list as if they are stating the same thing.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
Someone else compared what I proposed to MLS + biobanding.
Just clarifying that while both are examples of allowing older players to play down what I proposed allows 2 months older, what MLS does with biobanding allows 12 months older.
They're not the same thing.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Yes - I think most people (including the governing bodies) seem to be supportive of all of these as well. The details are in how well the totality of the rules cover the edge cases, where the relative priorities of fairness to which parties need to be directly weighed against each other.
If they are able to do #2, #1 is done by default (if trapped player is defined as someone not playing with their school grade). #3 is much more nuanced, and just depends how the dates/grades are chosen and spoken about. In most cases, they are interchangeable. What are you specifically trying to prevent by not allowing GY to be defined rather than SY? (for example the Lacrosse example above lists GY on the chart)
Yes GY ruins everything.
This this why I'm looking to specifically protect against it.
If you think MLSN with 24 months of variance is annoying try GY where there can be and often is 36 months of variance. Have you ever seen a 16 year old freshman that can drive to school? I have. And not only are parents drooling for the advantage. Private schools are also on board because it translates to...
1. Better scores from students (Because they're repeating the same grade 2x)
2. Private schools get an extra year of tuition.
I am aware of the law. It states you must be in school at 6 (“school is mandatory for six year old students”). You can turn 6 in Aug and start Public Kindergarten to be in compliance with the law. Given the Aug bday is before the Sept 1 cut off it is the elementary schools discretion whether they would allow you to do this when you start kindergarten. This doesn’t require a state or gov exception. It is as simple as the school saying yes.
If you think about incentives there really isn’t any for a school to say no unless they have too many kids in the incoming kindergarten class to accommodate.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I'm not understanding your point. Why does soccer choosing to group kids by GY do anything differently than by SY? It sounds like you are against crazy old kids in grades 1, 2, or even 3 years lower than would be expected - which is the point - but who cares if they call the team "the 9th grade team" or "class of 2028"?
Are you thinking this means 5 years in high school?
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
No, once again. If they are 6 on or before Sep 1, EC 48010 says they "shall be admitted to the 1st grade of an elementary school". Not Kindergarten. The school is pretty clearly not following the law if they are admitting (already) 6-year-olds into kindergarten without any justification. (link)
There are usually safeguards in place for the later grades as well when kids move into the district. There are guidelines for each grade, matching this 9/1 cutoff, but also there are statements that require anyone who is 15 to be referred only to the high school. Here's an example of such guidelines for one CA district: (link)
I'm specifucalky separating SY and GY because what you're describing is a trick GY people use to introduce GY.
SY groupings in what i proposed are a defined 14 month window. Yes this grouping will all graduate the same year. No this is not GY groupings.
GY groupings are what you see in high school. The window of eligability is defined by what age school districts allow to attend a specific grade. If a school allowed 17 year old freshman they're allowed to play at the freshman level.
You really don't want to introduce GY into youth soccer. You'll end up with private schools that roster teams of 17 year old freshman. You'll also end up with crazy parents that search out (across the nation) schools that allow this. If there's enough schools that cater to GY they'll create their own league. If they can create their own league they can give their own players all kinds of bogus accolades. These kind of accolades help in college admission or national or pro exposure and they can be purchased with a big donation. BTW this is what I was describing about what happened to Lacrosse. The private schools control the narrative and clubs get the leftovers.
See the can of worms switching from BY to SY opens up? This is also why I prefer BY over SY. With BY there's no expectation that groupings are aligned with the grade players attend. With SY there's a slippery slope where SY slowly morphs into GY because you're tieing groupings with players grade in school.
Like I highlighted above it won't be the current clubs that push for GY it will be the private schools. You already see the beginnings of what I'm describing in Socal in the Trinity league https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_League once the private schools have a league that rivals club leagues they'll recruit from clubs, offer scholorsips, and allow playing down. The net affect is that the clubs will lose if they ever play private schools which reinforces that private schools are "better" than club teams.
Here's another fun item for the SY people to consider.
President Trump wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education and return control to the states. If this happens do you think there will be more or less wacky start dates? I think it will be more and the trend will be to push cutoff dates into the summer. As each state individually competes with each other for federal funding which will be provided if kids are "better" than other states.
Can President Trump get rid of the Department of Education?
President Donald Trump and Republicans say they want to get rid of the Department of Education.
www.dcnewsnow.com
President Trump wants to get rid of the Federal Department of Education and return control to the states. If this happens do you think there will be more or less wacky start dates? I think it will be more and the trend will be to push cutoff dates into the summer. As each state individually competes with each other for federal funding which will be provided if kids are "better" than other states.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
I still don't fully grasp what you mean. On the CIF side, there are age requirements that try to prevent schools from doing this for Fresh/Soph teams (they disallow 17-year-olds), and disallowing 19-year-olds from being on any team whatsoever.
If soccer has no such rules, I can see it being able to be abused - but that's on however the regs are written. But I still don't see a clear difference in allowing or preventing this, between a school calling a team the 9th grade team, or class of 28. (and then a club having a corresponding 9th grade team, or calling it class of 2028) Of course it's probably wrong for the school to do so in almost all examples - but I'm not sure what they choose to define the category name as is the definitive control. (handy graduation year calculator)
It depends on fairness to the youngest players in the age group, 12 months, 16 months, or 24 months. The current ECNL is in the 12-month range, and very few Q4 players are still remain in the NL team. When you expand to 16 or even 24 months, you can be sure this number will go down to close to a minimal number. Is it fair to the youngest players? If the youngest players move down, then your 16/24 months age group will become essentially new 12-month age group for the 95% of players. In that case, why not just keep 12 months, let that 5% truly elite players play up. Or let the bottom 5% players to play down like MLSN biobanding is doing.
How would you accommodate school districts who's cutoff date is before 9/1? This is the bigger issue if you're trying to address all captured players. Rules that allow X number of players to play down won't work when 18 players that are playing down eligable are on a team from a district with an earlier school start date.
A way to get around this would be to provide different districts different numbers of players that can play down. But you can see how this would get hard to maintain
You must choose between accommodating all trap players or maintaining the game's fairness. You can not have both. So between accommodating a very few percentage of trap players left for whatever reason after the switch or be fair to the other 95% players. I think the 12-month range is the maximum to keep the youngest players still in the game. I agree with ECNL 8/1 or 9/1 cut off for 12 months age group with No wavier.
There's give and takes for all the different grouping definitions. Once all the math is on the table and everyone understands what the give an takes are it comes down to what you personally prefer.
I prefer BY
I don't mind a modified SY that addresses all trapped players. I say this because it just seems like a lot of effort to switch from BY to SY and not address all trapped players along the way. Also it seems like you're double screwing over the much smaller group of trapped players if it's not eliminated entirely.
You're right... this shit is riveting. More please!
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
What are you wasting time here for? Shouldn't you be guarding bathrooms for *reasons*?
They made a "gender neutral" one for you. Why so grumpy still?
The word “required” is not used because it is the schools discretion in conjunction with the parent as to what is developmentally the best for the kid. Schools also hold kids back if they are not keeping up and require them to repeat a grade if necessary. You also have kids transferring in from out state and country where the dates don’t align and they don’t skip kids forward a grade. There are no hard rules or requirements and no required check ins with the state for these reasons.
There is no way a kid in my Public school district could skip kindergarten without the equivalent education somewhere else. They would be so far behind as most kids at the end of kindergarten are reading very well.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
The text of the law couldn't be clearer.
If a parent can convincingly lie to the district, and say that they were unaware their kid should have been in kindergarten a year prior, or alternatively convince the district that their child, while too old, is developmentally delayed - then yes - the district may choose to admit a kid who is otherwise too old for the grade. Some districts are more gullible than others, and some parents lie better than other parents. None of this should be misconstrued as stating such parents are doing anything other than knowingly shooting for an unfair advantage, counter to the intent of the laws and regulations around schooling age.
What you're relaying will never be absolute because there will always be parents intentionally interpreting things in whatever way works in their favor.
The text of the law couldn't be clearer.
View attachment 24712
If a parent can convincingly lie to the district, and say that they were unaware their kid should have been in kindergarten a year prior, or alternatively convince the district that their child, while too old, is developmentally delayed - then yes - the district may choose to admit a kid who is otherwise too old for the grade. Some districts are more gullible than others, and some parents lie better than other parents. None of this should be misconstrued as stating such parents are doing anything other than knowingly shooting for an unfair advantage, counter to the intent of the laws and regulations around schooling age.
This is why a single cutoff date won't work with SY. Parents will continue to complain about trapped players intentional or not. If you do what I suggested there's 2 months on top of 9/1 it addresses all of all what people would consider trapped players which neutralizes parent complaints. You'll still get complaints from the GY people but this is neutralized as well because there's rules specifically to block them out.
Parents and players can focus playing in SY (like in BY) and not focus on bending or manipulating the rules to get ahead.