Get ready folks

Carlsbad7 said:
What you're relaying will never be absolute because there will always be parents intentionally interpreting things in whatever way works in their favor lying and thinking that it's somehow justifiable in their mind, as it's "helping their kid".
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Carlsbad7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree (that a single date will always have pros/cons), but disagree on your proposed solution for all the reasons already stated above. IMO it's the primary reason that Jan 1 was used, as it is easier to defend when challenged by those who are seeking an unfair advantage, while any date that is more squishy (like school cutoff) naturally creates this potential pushback by those who are aggrieved by whatever choice is made. But I'm not sure arguing CY vs SY is ever worth rehashing, as all of these discussions happened dozens and dozens of pages ago - soccer is going SY, and now the devil is in the details.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. You act like people are doing this maliciously and that just isn’t the case. Everyone I know had an open and honest conversation with their elementary school. They didn’t make the decision to get a hypothetical advantage for soccer because it wasn’t even a conversation at the time nor do most parents even care or obsess about it like you when their kid is that young. At the end of the day we can say we are going to leave these kids behind and not consider them but again it doesn’t fully solve the problem with a 9/1 date. That continues to be the only point I am trying to make.
 
Derek1800 said:
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. You act like people are doing this maliciously and that just isn’t the case. Everyone I know had an open and honest conversation with their elementary school. They didn’t make the decision to get a hypothetical advantage for soccer because it wasn’t even a conversation at the time nor do most parents even care or obsess about it like you when their kid is that young. At the end of the day we can say we are going to leave these kids behind and not consider them but again it doesn’t fully solve the problem with a 9/1 date. That continues to be the only point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...

ECNL never said they would solve the trap players issue. They only pick a date that can reduce the most. It looks like they will pick 9/1. It is unlucky for July and Aug. players, but the age group range needs to be 12 months. Nobody should be over 12 months older than the youngest player in the group. Your parents just try to wish ECNL could have some loopholes so your kids are the oldest, which is pathetic.
 
CAZZZ said:
ECNL never said they would solve the trap players issue. They only pick a date that can reduce the most. It looks like they will pick 9/1. It is unlucky for July and Aug. players, but the age group range needs to be 12 months. Nobody should be over 12 months older than the youngest player in the group. Your parents just try to wish ECNL could have some loopholes so your kids are the oldest, which is pathetic.
Click to expand...
I just seems odd to me to go through all the effort to align leagues to SY only to still have trapped players.

It seems even more odd to not implement solutions that allow SY to completely eliminate trapped players. But the tradeoff is 14 month groupings instead of 12 month groupings. Is 2 months really that big of an issue?

What will happen is trapped players under SY will go to BY leagues because SY teams will ignore them.
 
CAZZZ said:
ECNL never said they would solve the trap players issue. They only pick a date that can reduce the most. It looks like they will pick 9/1. It is unlucky for July and Aug. players, but the age group range needs to be 12 months. Nobody should be over 12 months older than the youngest player in the group. Your parents just try to wish ECNL could have some loopholes so your kids are the oldest, which is pathetic.
Click to expand...
I have a late November birthday son who is just getting to club ages. 9/1 is better for RAE for him than 8/1 or 7/1 yet here I am pushing for that side of the argument. I am not illusioned into thinking he will be a pro soccer player and even if that is the case the cutoff will not be the difference.
 
Derek1800 said:
I have a late November birthday son who is just getting to club ages. 9/1 is better for RAE for him than 8/1 or 7/1 yet here I am pushing for that side of the argument. I am not illusioned into thinking he will be a pro soccer player and even if that is the case the cutoff will not be the difference.
Click to expand...

I don't care which date is a cutoff date. My previous point is once ECNL sets a cutoff date and makes it a 12-month range, then that is it. Some people wish to persuade ECNL to provide some waiver for whatever reason, while their true intention is to make their kids the oldest in the younger age group.
 
CAZZZ said:
I don't care which date is a cutoff date. My previous point is once ECNL sets a cutoff date and makes it a 12-month range, then that is it. Some people wish to persuade ECNL to provide some waiver for whatever reason, while their true intention is to make their kids the oldest in the younger age group.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Set the date and no waivers.
 
RandomSoccerFan said:
images


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.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a child will be held back. I know several that have been held back to repeat kindergarten because they weren't prepared for first grade (reading level, English as a second language and drastically behind, recently immigrated) which you could argue is rare, but where I live in SD it isn't. There is a HIGHER number of kids that this applies to, whom would be interested in REC SOCCER, than there are pro-level projected players trying to cheat by playing down. People are simply trying to be inclusive to make the sport (at a lower level) available to as many kids as possible, while hopefully eliminating as many trapped players as possible. Could there be a few rare cases where someone is trying to gain an advantage, maybe, but these aren't kids that will be headed for top level if they are needing to play down.
These "cheaters" you are attacking are most likely parents that never even thought about soccer and giving their kid an advantage. They simply don't want their kid being in the bottom 1% academically.
 
Derek1800 said:
You are making an awful lot of assumptions here. You act like people are doing this maliciously and that just isn’t the case. Everyone I know had an open and honest conversation with their elementary school. They didn’t make the decision to get a hypothetical advantage for soccer because it wasn’t even a conversation at the time nor do most parents even care or obsess about it like you when their kid is that young. At the end of the day we can say we are going to leave these kids behind and not consider them but again it doesn’t fully solve the problem with a 9/1 date. That continues to be the only point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...

Everyone on here is anonymous unless they choose not to be, and everything they say can be completely truthful, intentionally misleading, or just be AI training itself. Of course I'm making assumptions - we all are. But I am making no assumptions at all at the many kids I've seen in competitive sports, held back by idiot parents who believe Braylen and Emma will be rock stars if they get to compete at a year (or more) lower level. Some of them have been on my kid's teams. All of them have done it by realizing the public school won't be as accommodating to their "needs", and move to private where it's much easier to convince someone (if convincing is necessary).

If this is done for what we'd agree was "legitimate" reasons in pre-k or 1st grade - there is no need to continue the same decision making on a child's fitness for grade when accommodating soccer team choices in 7th grade or later. Which is exactly what the ECNL whiners here are doing, seeing that Braylen and Emma may not be able to continue to play with their "younger" grade, and may have to play with kids their own age.

soccermom24 said:
There are plenty of legitimate reasons a child will be held back. I know several that have been held back to repeat kindergarten because they weren't prepared for first grade (reading level, English as a second language and drastically behind, recently immigrated) which you could argue is rare, but where I live in SD it isn't. There is a HIGHER number of kids that this applies to, whom would be interested in REC SOCCER, than there are pro-level projected players trying to cheat by playing down. People are simply trying to be inclusive to make the sport (at a lower level) available to as many kids as possible, while hopefully eliminating as many trapped players as possible. Could there be a few rare cases where someone is trying to gain an advantage, maybe, but these aren't kids that will be headed for top level if they are needing to play down.
These "cheaters" you are attacking are most likely parents that never even thought about soccer and giving their kid an advantage. They simply don't want their kid being in the bottom 1% academically.
Click to expand...

Of course there are legitimate reasons to hold a child back. Whether it's physical, social, developmental, academic, or any other reason, most parents are almost certainly trying to do what's best for their kid. But.... making that decision at age 6 does not set them on an age track for competitive sports for the rest of their childhood, as much as parents might hope it does (if and when they realize the problem).

Furthermore - if you're really talking about "trapped players", you're not talking about rec players. There aren't many who are on teams that have kids playing high school sport - so they can't play club sport that season.
 
Simple solution. Go by the age and grade your school accepts kids to enroll. If you hold your kid back, they would have to play with kids they would have been in the same grade with. The decision to hold your kid back for whatever reason would have consequences in this situation if they wanted to play with kids in their same grad year. Schools have different enrollment dates but were talking a month or 2 apart. They will be recruited together by their grad year either way so it doesn't matter.
 
MSK357 said:
Simple solution. Go by the age and grade your school accepts kids to enroll. If you hold your kid back, they would have to play with kids they would have been in the same grade with. The decision to hold your kid back for whatever reason would have consequences in this situation if they wanted to play with kids in their same grad year. Schools have different enrollment dates but were talking a month or 2 apart. They will be recruited together by their grad year either way so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I always try to look at things from all angles. Regarding your "simple solution" there are some negatives.

1. Clubs will need to maintain a registry of players grade in school. Currently with BY they don't need to do this.

2. You're introducing a 14 month eligability window. Its currently a 12 month eligability window. The interesting thing about this is in local leagues it would still be a 12 month window because most schools in the same areas would start on the same date. Where you would see 14 month windows is when national teams play each other because some schools would start before schools in other states.

Other than above, adding a 2 month variable window depending on grade enrolled on school is the best way to completely address trapped players in SY.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I always try to look at things from all angles. Regarding your "simple solution" there are some negatives.

1. Clubs will need to maintain a registry of players grade in school. Currently with BY they don't need to do this.

2. You're introducing a 14 month eligability window. Its currently a 12 month eligability window. The interesting thing about this is in local leagues it would still be a 12 month window because most schools in the same areas would start on the same date. Where you would see 14 month windows is when national teams play each other because some schools would start before schools in other states.

Other than above, adding a 2 month variable window depending on grade enrolled on school is the best way to completely address trapped players in SY.
Click to expand...
I dont think verifying a student is enrolled at a certain grade in their appropriate enrollment period is hard to obtain. just make it a requirement to get from the school along with their birth certificate. I'm sure there are parents in youth soccer that will make sure nobody is forging either.

As far as the 14 month window, that's already the case for colleges recruiting kids across the country within a specific grad year. Kids from one state will be competing with kids from another state that had an earlier enrollment window for scholarships. Those crying about a 2 month variable window are really only worried about their kids spot on their youth soccer roster.
 
MSK357 said:
I dont think verifying a student is enrolled at a certain grade in their appropriate enrollment period is hard to obtain. just make it a requirement to get from the school along with their birth certificate. I'm sure there are parents in youth soccer that will make sure nobody is forging either.

As far as the 14 month window, that's already the case for colleges recruiting kids across the country within a specific grad year. Kids from one state will be competing with kids from another state that had an earlier enrollment window for scholarships. Those crying about a 2 month variable window are really only worried about their kids spot on their youth soccer roster.
Click to expand...

There has to be a line, and 12 months is fair. I am also fine with MLS stay in BY and ECNL goes to SY. But no waiver, no parents trying to find a loophole to their kids can be the oldest and play against other kids 13/14 months younger. If my kid has to be in the B team without a loophole, then be it. I am totally fine with it and that is what I am preparing myself for the possibility after the switch.
 
MSK357 said:
I dont think verifying a student is enrolled at a certain grade in their appropriate enrollment period is hard to obtain. just make it a requirement to get from the school along with their birth certificate. I'm sure there are parents in youth soccer that will make sure nobody is forging either.

As far as the 14 month window, that's already the case for colleges recruiting kids across the country within a specific grad year. Kids from one state will be competing with kids from another state that had an earlier enrollment window for scholarships. Those crying about a 2 month variable window are really only worried about their kids spot on their youth soccer roster.
Click to expand...
I don't think asking clubs to maintain a record of birth cert and grade in school is that big of a deal either. However, it is something extra that they're not doing currently so it's an additional expense.

Also, the highest levels where players might be recruited for playing in college are the only teams where playing down a grade but being the same age as other players might occur. And this is only a 2 month window. Parents from both teams will know if anyone is cheating so it's just not likely to occur long term. (And you know as soon as someone gets caught they'll just hold their kid back a grade to make everything work.)

But you can see how this can slide into 14 month groupings. This is because someone will say let's just do 14 months instead of 12 and not even worry about what grade they're in. What's the difference? They're the same age as other kids already playing in that grouping. It's easier this way because all you need is a birth cert. The difference is that you're trying to make it so all players on the field at one time will be in the same grade in school and graduating the same year as a convience for college recruiters.
 
CAZZZ said:
There has to be a line, and 12 months is fair. I am also fine with MLS stay in BY and ECNL goes to SY. But no waiver, no parents trying to find a loophole to their kids can be the oldest and play against other kids 13/14 months younger. If my kid has to be in the B team without a loophole, then be it. I am totally fine with it and that is what I am preparing myself for the possibility after the switch.
Click to expand...
The "line" is what year does the player graduate high school? and are they in the appropriate grade based on their age and schools enrollment timeline. No waiver needed. Kids that enrolled later for whatever reason still have to play with the kids their age in the grade they were supposed to be enrolled in. If they become trapped because of their decision, well it was their decision.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
I don't think asking clubs to maintain a record of birth cert and grade in school is that big of a deal either. However, it is something extra that they're not doing currently so it's an additional expense.

Also, the highest levels where players might be recruited for playing in college are the only teams where playing down a grade but being the same age as other players might occur. And this is only a 2 month window. Parents from both teams will know if anyone is cheating so it's just not likely to occur long term. (And you know as soon as someone gets caught they'll just hold their kid back a grade to make everything work.)

But you can see how this can slide into 14 month groupings. This is because someone will say let's just do 14 months instead of 12 and not even worry about what grade they're in. What's the difference? They're the same age as other kids already playing in that grouping. It's easier this way because all you need is a birth cert. The difference is that you're trying to make it so all players on the field at one time will be in the same grade in school and graduating the same year as a convience for college recruiters.
Click to expand...
Parents will always ask to change things in their kids favor. They just need to pick a decision and stick with it. I just think its the most fair if we go by age and schools enrollment date. ultimately the next level is college for most players if they choose to continue and allowing them to be on the same field just makes more sense. You can always play up.
 
Just checking back in this thread after reading the US Soccer decision...so basically nothing will be decided until 2026-2027? Wouldn't the "flexible" option just lead to kids looking for new leagues to maximize their age advantage? I kinda wish they just rip the bandaid off and doing so it reduces confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top