ECNL wants to switch back to school year from birth year

[Guest]

The reality is trapped players in a birth year system are systematically disenfranchised to a point that is bordering on discriminatory. First they drop out of club soccer early when they can't play with kids in their grade year. The physical implications of RAE are well documented and irrefutable. There is also a huge social gap between 5th graders and 6th graders. Participation in club soccer is taking a serious hit while talented athletes flock to field hockey and lacrosse to play in their graduation year cohort. Then club soccer loses more talented athletes when Q4 kids don't have a team in the fall of 8th grade. Finally and most seriously trapped players are truly cheated in the recruiting process. Being a freshmen on a team that is 90% sophomores then a sophomore on a team with 90% juniors means college coaches are never looking at Q4 players. Please spare me your anecdotal evidence the numbers don't lie. The club is focused on committing sophomores and juniors so they say they will circle back the following year but when Q4s are sophomores/juniors their older teammates are committed and barely participate in showcases. Even if they do attend showcases the ship has sailed and the college coaches are now focused on the team below them that is filled with 90% sophomores or juniors and playing across the complex. Then as a Q4 senior you legitimately do not have a team. To be perfectly frank I am shocked that no one has litigated over the disparity in the process. The numbers don't lie Q4 participation is drastically below what it should be statistically speaking and Q4 college commitments are significantly underwhelming. It costs zero dollars to file a class action lawsuit with an attorney working on a contingency basis. It will be interesting to see what happens if there isn't a return to GY.

[Guest]

So you want to shift the unfairness from Q4 kids under the current system to Q2 kids under a SY system. What's the difference, the Q2 kids should be punished because they were all nefariously "held back" in school to gain an unfair advantage? Or maybe it's that there are fewer Q2's, even though the impact is the same? I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that your kid has a birthday coming up real soon. If your argument against BY is that you find the trapped player phenomenon unconscionable, then the only objectively fair way to eliminate that is a pure GY system with whatever warts you perceive that system has. Any other system leaves trapped players which you find so troubling (but really only when it affects your kid).

[Guest]

So you want to shift the unfairness from Q4 kids under the current system to Q2 kids under a SY system. What's the difference, the Q2 kids should be punished because they were all nefariously "held back" in school to gain an unfair advantage? Or maybe it's that there are fewer Q2's, even though the impact is the same? I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that your kid has a birthday coming up real soon. If your argument against BY is that you find the trapped player phenomenon unconscionable, then the only objectively fair way to eliminate that is a pure GY system with whatever warts you perceive that system has. Any other system leaves trapped players which you find so troubling (but really only when it affects your kid).

This is more than burden shifting. There is a structural issue with BY that causes fall-out at several points, conflicts with HS soccer and creates a need for composite teams the last year of HS. If you take any self interest out of the equation, SY is the right thing to do for the sport. There is no compelling reason or argument for BY beyond the one time disruption of switching it back. In many states, the number of potential trapped kids is 40%. Objectively, US Soccer should have an interest in maximizing the number of kids that play soccer and continue to play soccer. Kids fall out because of the birth year phenomenon. The rationale for making the shift back in 2016/17 didnt make sense then and it doesnt make sense now.

[Guest]

So much hypocrisy and lack of objectivity on this topic. Lots of "arguments" that are just word salad trying to justify a position that really just comes down to the date of your own kid's birthday. In any system with a cutoff date, you'll have a 12 mo period. The first kid born after the cutoff is going to be a year older than the last kid born before the next cutoff. Changing from BY to SY just shifts the benefits and detriments of REA from one group to another. And all of this without solving the trapped player problem that is given as the reason for the change. Any cutoff date system is going to have trapped players. You might have fewer trapped players with a move to SY, but the problem is the same. Even if there could be a quantitative difference, there isn't a qualitative one.

If the disruption caused by the original change to CY didn't make sense, disrupting the system again doesn't make sense either. It will really suck for kids old enough to have gone through it once already and now would go through it again (except maybe for the kids with lucky birthdays in Aug or Sep). And all of that disruption not to eliminate trapped players but to reduce the number? The only way to eliminate the trapped player problem is going to a pure GY, and that has it's own issues. Just stick to the current system. It's not worth changing back.

Disclosure: I've got one kid who would "win" the Aug 1 lottery and one who would "lose." Both of them play on strong teams that are good fits, they like their teammates, they have good coaches. Both teams would be torn apart by a change, so neither would be a "winner" if you ask me.

[Guest]

So you want to shift the unfairness from Q4 kids under the current system to Q2 kids under a SY system. What's the difference, the Q2 kids should be punished because they were all nefariously "held back" in school to gain an unfair advantage? Or maybe it's that there are fewer Q2's, even though the impact is the same? I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that your kid has a birthday coming up real soon. If your argument against BY is that you find the trapped player phenomenon unconscionable, then the only objectively fair way to eliminate that is a pure GY system with whatever warts you perceive that system has. Any other system leaves trapped players which you find so troubling (but really only when it affects your kid).

Q2 kids will not face any difficulties during the recruiting process as their entire team will be the same grade year being evaluated by coaches at the appropriate time. They will also never lose a fall season.

[Guest]

So much hypocrisy and lack of objectivity on this topic. Lots of "arguments" that are just word salad trying to justify a position that really just comes down to the date of your own kid's birthday. In any system with a cutoff date, you'll have a 12 mo period. The first kid born after the cutoff is going to be a year older than the last kid born before the next cutoff. Changing from BY to SY just shifts the benefits and detriments of REA from one group to another. And all of this without solving the trapped player problem that is given as the reason for the change. Any cutoff date system is going to have trapped players. You might have fewer trapped players with a move to SY, but the problem is the same. Even if there could be a quantitative difference, there isn't a qualitative one.

If the disruption caused by the original change to CY didn't make sense, disrupting the system again doesn't make sense either. It will really suck for kids old enough to have gone through it once already and now would go through it again (except maybe for the kids with lucky birthdays in Aug or Sep). And all of that disruption not to eliminate trapped players but to reduce the number? The only way to eliminate the trapped player problem is going to a pure GY, and that has it's own issues. Just stick to the current system. It's not worth changing back.

Disclosure: I've got one kid who would "win" the Aug 1 lottery and one who would "lose." Both of them play on strong teams that are good fits, they like their teammates, they have good coaches. Both teams would be torn apart by a change, so neither would be a "winner" if you ask me.

There will be no trapped players in a SY/GY system. Either go straight graduation year literally check the box and here's your team of 2029s or have an 8/1 DOB cutoff as there are no schools in the US that start prior to August 1st. It's not tricky. School year literally solves every problem and creates no new issues. The fact that anyone is debating the benefits of returning to SY is just baffling.

[Guest]

So you want to shift the unfairness from Q4 kids under the current system to Q2 kids under a SY system. What's the difference, the Q2 kids should be punished because they were all nefariously "held back" in school to gain an unfair advantage? Or maybe it's that there are fewer Q2's, even though the impact is the same? I'm guessing it has more to do with the fact that your kid has a birthday coming up real soon. If your argument against BY is that you find the trapped player phenomenon unconscionable, then the only objectively fair way to eliminate that is a pure GY system with whatever warts you perceive that system has. Any other system leaves trapped players which you find so troubling (but really only when it affects your kid).

I am 1000000% for straight graduation year. I also genuinely don't care if kids reclass so I'm not hoping to shift the burden to any other group of players. All I care about is making sure NO kid loses a season AND leveling the recruiting field so sophomores play with and against sophomores while college coaches watch. Period.

[Guest]

Is every pro-BY post now just a recitation of the perfect solution fallacy followed by impugning the motives of the pro-SY people?

[Guest]

I am 1000000% for straight graduation year. I also genuinely don't care if kids reclass so I'm not hoping to shift the burden to any other group of players. All I care about is making sure NO kid loses a season AND leveling the recruiting field so sophomores play with and against sophomores while college coaches watch. Period.

Good post.

[Guest]

Is every pro-BY post now just a recitation of the perfect solution fallacy followed by impugning the motives of the pro-SY people?

No but that does not permit pro-SY people to put out false statements and expect them to be received as gospel truth.

case in point: kids do not lose a season. Clubs have programs for trapped players to train. Many middle schools and towns have programs. Depending on which high school you would attend, this trapped year option can often be better than the high school alternative.

second case in point: college recruiters do not have difficulty with scouting the trapped players. The trapped players are at the bottom of the RAE equation for club and are underrepresented as happens with all RAE equations. However, those Q4 kids that do make it to top level HS age teams have benefitted from playing against older kids for years. This is a part of their development that they would have lacked under SY. Many college recruiters give extra weight to theses kids because of that relative to their BY behind classmates.

FYI I am not a SY detractor. I am for it strictly from convenience viewpoint. Because while trapped kids do not miss a season, it is inconvenient to learn to play with different kids or to train with fewer games (even though that is the world wide model). I hope that they make the change to SY for that reason alone. Honestly, that reason is enough we don’t need all the other false flags.

[Guest]

So much hypocrisy and lack of objectivity on this topic. Lots of "arguments" that are just word salad trying to justify a position that really just comes down to the date of your own kid's birthday. In any system with a cutoff date, you'll have a 12 mo period. The first kid born after the cutoff is going to be a year older than the last kid born before the next cutoff. Changing from BY to SY just shifts the benefits and detriments of REA from one group to another. And all of this without solving the trapped player problem that is given as the reason for the change. Any cutoff date system is going to have trapped players. You might have fewer trapped players with a move to SY, but the problem is the same. Even if there could be a quantitative difference, there isn't a qualitative one.

If the disruption caused by the original change to CY didn't make sense, disrupting the system again doesn't make sense either. It will really suck for kids old enough to have gone through it once already and now would go through it again (except maybe for the kids with lucky birthdays in Aug or Sep). And all of that disruption not to eliminate trapped players but to reduce the number? The only way to eliminate the trapped player problem is going to a pure GY, and that has it's own issues. Just stick to the current system. It's not worth changing back.

Disclosure: I've got one kid who would "win" the Aug 1 lottery and one who would "lose." Both of them play on strong teams that are good fits, they like their teammates, they have good coaches. Both teams would be torn apart by a change, so neither would be a "winner" if you ask me.

so to paraphrase, you have no argument other than the one time disruption, which in your self interest you are against? So much for being objective. Again, in some states, the trapped player isnt currently a big issue and you end up with reverse trapped players that can still just play with their grade. And again, in some states its a huge issue where the reduction in potential trapped players in some states is nearly 40% The initial disruption was all about creating the entry issue, the 8th grade issue and the 12th grade issue AND the participation fallout issue. Under any objective measure, GY is the right thing for youth soccer to do.

Disclosure: I have 2 trapped kids and 2 non-trapped kids. One of my trapped kids is also on a strong team (1 of 2 trapped) where i drive her nearly an hour to practice each way, and would be really upset if this happens. She'd probably end up switching clubs just because she dislikes the cohort that is actually in her grade. She's had the benefit of playing with older kids, which has made her a stronger player. The younger trapped kid almost quit soccer at the beginning because she couldn't play with her friends from school. Stuff like that matters when kids are starting out.

[Guest]

Disclosure: I've got one kid who would "win" the Aug 1 lottery and one who would "lose." Both of them play on strong teams that are good fits, they like their teammates, they have good coaches. Both teams would be torn apart by a change, so neither would be a "winner" if you ask me.

Obviously your kids don't play ECNL because ECNL teams get "torn apart" every year regardless.
My d is Q1 and a starter. I am pro SY because our Q4 players are terrible. They are the bench but the coach still has to give them playing time. They are not many but they lack the maturity and smarts. They will thrive on the team below ours.
There are some really good Q4 players on the regional team above us that would def be starters on our team. Plus the Q4 starters on the national team above us can rightly displace some of our starters.

All in all, SY or grad year will make our team stronger.
And if it means my Q1 player is relegated to the bench then so be it. She will be less frustrated / demoralized with less playing time on a strong team vs more playing time on a weak team.

[Guest]

so to paraphrase, you have no argument other than the one time disruption, which in your self interest you are against? So much for being objective. Again, in some states, the trapped player isnt currently a big issue and you end up with reverse trapped players that can still just play with their grade. And again, in some states its a huge issue where the reduction in potential trapped players in some states is nearly 40% The initial disruption was all about creating the entry issue, the 8th grade issue and the 12th grade issue AND the participation fallout issue. Under any objective measure, GY is the right thing for youth soccer to do.

Disclosure: I have 2 trapped kids and 2 non-trapped kids. One of my trapped kids is also on a strong team (1 of 2 trapped) where i drive her nearly an hour to practice each way, and would be really upset if this happens. She'd probably end up switching clubs just because she dislikes the cohort that is actually in her grade. She's had the benefit of playing with older kids, which has made her a stronger player. The younger trapped kid almost quit soccer at the beginning because she couldn't play with her friends from school. Stuff like that matters when kids are starting out.

Participation rates have too many uncontrolled variables to place the blame at BY. And with the exception of Covid year partition rates are on the rise for soccer while falling in most other sports. The Aspen report dissection happened in depth earlier in the thread.

[Guest]

There will be no trapped players in a SY/GY system. Either go straight graduation year literally check the box and here's your team of 2029s or have an 8/1 DOB cutoff as there are no schools in the US that start prior to August 1st. It's not tricky. School year literally solves every problem and creates no new issues. The fact that anyone is debating the benefits of returning to SY is just baffling.

Nope, that's not correct. And what does the date that school starts have to do with anything?

As pointed out above, an 8/1 cutoff would make kids with a pre-8/1 birthday trapped if they were "held back" in school. A U14 with a Q2 birthday but only in 7th grade is going to be trapped next year under the current system. And if they change to 8/1, she'll still be trapped because she'll be in 8th grade next year while the rest of her teammates are in 9th grade. Pure GY system is the only way to avoid trapped players.

[Guest]

Nope, that's not correct. And what does the date that school starts have to do with anything?

As pointed out above, an 8/1 cutoff would make kids with a pre-8/1 birthday trapped if they were "held back" in school. A U14 with a Q2 birthday but only in 7th grade is going to be trapped next year under the current system. And if they change to 8/1, she'll still be trapped because she'll be in 8th grade next year while the rest of her teammates are in 9th grade. Pure GY system is the only way to avoid trapped players.

You're pointing out 1% problems instead of 25%-33% problems and being disingenuous because you could see this exact same statement a couple pages earlier. Pretty much every argument has already been made and countered for both sides if you actually care to read.