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.
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
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.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Agreed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
100% agree. Set the date and no waivers.
soccermom24
BRONZE
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.
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.
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.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
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.
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.
MSK357
GOLD
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.
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.
MSK357
GOLD
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.