Get ready folks

[RandomSoccerFan]

It’s hard to fathom that ECNL who wants to facilitate college recruiting for kids in a given grade and stop dealing with the trapped player problem would be so rigid and leave a chunk of August kids dangling out there playing with the wrong grade and trapped again with little to zero fellow trapped players.

You may be right - and it was an Aug 1 cutoff before, maybe it will be that again. But if it is Aug - it's choosing which Aug kids ECNL favors - those who started school late (older), rather than those that started school on time.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I dont think you understand what is happening nor the regulations for CA. Many kids are turning 7 in Aug going into 1st grade in public where I am (whether school starts in mid Aug or sept for them). I actively have a TKer right now at a big school district and see this happening. This is what gives them the RAE advantage as they will be the oldest in their grade.

This doesn’t require the private school route. Private school is only required if you want your kid who is turning 7 after Sept 1 to be in first grade (and they would in turn be the youngest in their class) and CA will reject them starting early. It is the opposite scenario and not applicable for this conversation.

Funny - I think you've instead clearly demonstrated that you don't - nor have you read the regulations for CA. Here's the link again. Kids need to be enrolled once they turn 5, prior to the start of school year. Typically that's kindergarten. They have to have 1 year of kindergarten, and they need to be promoted to first grade. If they started kindergarten early (and/or did TK), and are sticking around for a 2nd year of kindergarten prior to going to first grade, the parents have to submit the "Kindergarten Continuance Form". If the district doesn't promote enough kids who are otherwise eligible - i.e. too many aren't meeting the requirements to be promoted, the district loses apportionment (money). There is strong encouragement to keep kids on track.

You might want to check your data, and if you're curious, confirm with any of the parents who have an already 7 year old that won't start 1st grade in public until Sep 2025 - and see what was necessary for them to attest to in order to make that happen. In private, the only check is, well, whether it clears.

It is interesting, that for quite some time there was much more pressure to admit kids early (younger), to not only give them a "head start" academically, but simply for the logistics of giving the kid somewhere to go during the day. I have no doubt there is still some pressure in that direction, but there is now also the push being discussed here, trying to bend things so kids can be admitted late (older).

 

[SoccerSF]

You may be right - and it was an Aug 1 cutoff before, maybe it will be that again. But if it is Aug - it's choosing which Aug kids ECNL favors - those who started school late (older), rather than those that started school on time.

The August kids who are young for their grade will be the youngest on their SY soccer team if they use a 9/1 soccer cutoff. With 8/1 soccer cutoff, these kids can play up with their grade and still be the youngest (same as with a 9/1 cutoff), or play with the grade below them and be the very oldest. They have options. This is a better alternative than what happens to the August kids who are old for their grade in a 9/1 scenario, where they have no choice but to play up with the grade ahead of them and be the very youngest as well.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I get your opinion - I just think you're biased and wrong.

Whether the final date is 9/1, 8/1, 7/1, or any alternative - it is going to leave kids on one side of it or the other - and those affected will be legitimately disappointed.

 

[MSK357]

The argument about wanting to play with friends from the same school and school year seems BS. Maybe at the rec level but as they get older and/or get on competitive teams, they will have players from different schools, districts, even counties. Mainly meeting up for soccer only. Maybe about 3 players from the same school at most. any more than that would be rare for a competitive team. Players on these teams just want to be on the best team they can get on, wanting to play with classmates is not going to make them quit soccer. Clubs might benefit with more kids playing at the rec or lower level with this age group change but 100% its parents with trapped kids that want this change because they think it will help their kid get on a top team.

High school aged kids are a different story. You might get players from a top competitive team grouping together at a private school. But again, they would play soccer regardless. They will not quit soccer because they can't play with their school/classmate friends.

Having said that, I think kids should be able to play with kids their grad year. For recruitment, it puts kids graduating the same year on the same playing field, literally. Just keep controls in place for crazy parents that would hold their kid back in school for an advantage. I think they should just be honest why they are wanting to do this.

 

[SoccerSF]

The issue is a 9/1 soccer date cutoff doesn’t just impact ECNL kids at older levels (though those kids continuing to be trapped and even more on an island alone without other trapped kids from Sept - Dec is a legit problem), but presumably all of US Club will go the same way, and that impacts the younger kids who play club from early ages (eg U8 and older in NorCal). The impacts are felt across all age groups.

 

[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.