ECNL wants to switch back to school year from birth year

[Guest]

Again it’s easy for you to pass it off as no big deal because the 8/1 solution fixes your kid’s problem. You ulittle dads just keep proving my point. All you care about is yourself and you’re willing to screw anyone and everyone as long as you perceive it will help you (reality is your rl kid will still be a rl kid and that reality will sink in quickly if and it’s a big if this change happens). Just disgusting behavior overall

9/1 is the most inclusive.
Grad year will have most cheaters.
8/1 is not even an option as it is not in line with the majority of public schools.

Time to accept 9/1-8/31 will be the new age cut off based on equity, inclusivity and growth of the sport. This is no longer an ECNL recruiting issue.

[Guest]

9/1 is the most inclusive.
Grad year will have most cheaters.
8/1 is not even an option as it is not in line with the majority of public schools.

Time to accept 9/1-8/31 will be the new age cut off based on equity, inclusivity and growth of the sport. This is no longer an ECNL recruiting issue.

This isn’t a corporate exercise nor is it 2020. No one cares about the racist DEI propaganda. Do what’s right for the sport which is nothing.

[Guest]

Again, MINIMUM age!

Do the math! They must attend kindergarten starting the calendar year in which they turn 6. So Q1-Q3 can choose whether to start early, but certainly within range of the law.

No. It establishes a max. The wording is plain as day: You MUST start the year you are 6. Not when you are 7. Not when you are 8. MUST start in the September of the year that you turn 6. Sept to Dec babies would be 5 when they start (turn 6 later that year). Jan to Aug babies would be 6 when school starts. This is the state law clipped verbatim from the state website.

From there, each town can establish their own lower minimum as long as it doesn’t change the max start age of 6.

Of course we all know kids that were started late but that requires a variance letter. Always a formality and always approved but requires paperwork to waive the mandated start in the year that the kid turns 6.

[Guest]

9/1 is the most inclusive.
Grad year will have most cheaters.
8/1 is not even an option as it is not in line with the majority of public schools.

Time to accept 9/1-8/31 will be the new age cut off based on equity, inclusivity and growth of the sport. This is no longer an ECNL recruiting issue.

How is 9/1 inclusive if there are schools that start in August? Isn’t the whole point of the exercise to align better with school year? Have you tried looking up the word “inclusive” in the dictionary?

[Guest]

How is 9/1 inclusive if there are schools that start in August? Isn’t the whole point of the exercise to align better with school year? Have you tried looking up the word “inclusive” in the dictionary?

Make it 8/1.

For States that have 9/1, give the August kids the option to play with their school year if they want. No one cares if a kid “plays up” when starting out.

[Guest]

Make it 8/1.

For States that have 9/1, give the August kids the option to play with their school year if they want. No one cares if a kid “plays up” when starting out.

They are going to write it to cover different start dates in different states. Without allowing re classing. It will take an extra sentence or two in the written rule. To go through this change without eliminating the actual problem would be tragic. They are viewing reclassed kids as anomalies who created their own issue and trying to include them in the fix would create other problems so they are excluding them from the fix. They would still be trapped. This has been corroborated by two local DOCs.

[Guest]

9/1 is the most inclusive.
Grad year will have most cheaters.
8/1 is not even an option as it is not in line with the majority of public schools.

Time to accept 9/1-8/31 will be the new age cut off based on equity, inclusivity and growth of the sport. This is no longer an ECNL recruiting issue.

The words inclusivity and equity have been cancelled. Use them at your own peril.

[Guest]

No. It establishes a max. The wording is plain as day: You MUST start the year you are 6. Not when you are 7. Not when you are 8. MUST start in the September of the year that you turn 6. Sept to Dec babies would be 5 when they start (turn 6 later that year). Jan to Aug babies would be 6 when school starts. This is the state law clipped verbatim from the state website.

From there, each town can establish their own lower minimum as long as it doesn’t change the max start age of 6.

Of course we all know kids that were started late but that requires a variance letter. Always a formality and always approved but requires paperwork to waive the mandated start in the year that the kid turns 6.

Nope! Your math is off by a year. Most kids start kindergarten when they are 5, not 6. But it's OK, and certainly legal to start at 6 as you are also stating. A July kid starting kindergarten at 6 years 1 month will be one of the older kids in their grade, but under 8/1 soccer cut off would have to play with mostly kids one grade higher.

To be explicit, the legal range to start kindergarten is between 5 year 0-1 month to 6 years 8-9 months, much wider than some would have you believe.

[Guest]

Nope! Your math is off by a year. Most kids start kindergarten when they are 5, not 6. But it's OK, and certainly legal to start at 6 as you are also stating. A July kid starting kindergarten at 6 years 1 month will be one of the older kids in their grade, but under 8/1 soccer cut off would have to play with mostly kids one grade higher.

To be explicit, the legal range to start kindergarten is between 5 year 0-1 month to 6 years 8-9 months, much wider than some would have you believe.

Another way to think about it is that most Jan-Aug parents choose an extra year of free childcare and send their children to kindergarten when they are 5, even though it's not mandatory that year. That's a choice made under free will, so why should kids that started kindergarten at 6 (again, VERY legal) be punished for not making that choice? It's not like some loophole was exploited, it's just most people generally like free child care so they ship their kids off to school as early as possible, which is not necessarily the best option for the kids.

[Guest]

"Make the trains run on time"
-Benito Mussolini

This thread has certainly gone off the rails.

[Guest]

Another way to think about it is that most Jan-Aug parents choose an extra year of free childcare and send their children to kindergarten when they are 5, even though it's not mandatory that year. That's a choice made under free will, so why should kids that started kindergarten at 6 (again, VERY legal) be punished for not making that choice? It's not like some loophole was exploited, it's just most people generally like free child care so they ship their kids off to school as early as possible, which is not necessarily the best option for the kids.

Or if your child is too stupid to start kindergarten with kids their age, you'll wait a year. Totally legit.

[Guest]

They are going to write it to cover different start dates in different states. Without allowing re classing. It will take an extra sentence or two in the written rule. To go through this change without eliminating the actual problem would be tragic. They are viewing reclassed kids as anomalies who created their own issue and trying to include them in the fix would create other problems so they are excluding them from the fix. They would still be trapped. This has been corroborated by two local DOCs.

So my June '07 child who's a freshman currently will have to play with juniors next year?
So she will miss Sophomore year showcases?

Okay so let's say she attends showcases next year with the team of juniors and a scout is interested in her, they can't technically contact her because she's actually still a sophomore. Correct?

[Guest]

So my June '07 child who's a freshman currently will have to play with juniors next year?
So she will miss Sophomore year showcases?

Okay so let's say she attends showcases next year with the team of juniors and a scout is interested in her, they can't technically contact her because she's actually still a sophomore. Correct?

Meant to say June '09 (not '07)

[Guest]

Can you say that for Q4 players? Or they are not real players so they need help with setting them up to be the oldest kids on a team?

Nope...my daughter is a q4 player and one of the strongest on the team. She is a trapped player as of now. The move is to align with how colleges recruit. They don't recruit by age but by grade. When they go to college, they are based on their grade level not year they are born. Dumb comment on your part - cope harder.

[Guest]

This isn’t a corporate exercise nor is it 2020. No one cares about the racist DEI propaganda. Do what’s right for the sport which is nothing.

Reading your post is as gross as watching you **********.