ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless there is currently a lot going on behind the scenes with ECNL and US Soccer, there’s no way ECNL can make SY happen in 25/26. ECNL was crazy not to make that happen.

ECNL will be SY 26/27 9/1 cutoff but showcases will be based off grad year. 27/28 each team can use up to 3 GY players for league play. 28/29 ECNL is a grad year league.

Do people just make this stuff up?

A buddy of mine who’s a former pro and college coach currently an ECNL coach told me this is being discussed. Let’s stop it now and get anti GY going.

No hold backs allowed!

This is such an asinine “appeal to 2nd hand authority”

What does “former pro, former college coach” have anything to do with their credibility? And anyone that has dealt with ECNL also knows that in general the coaches know nothing about the league politics, they just want to have their team and coach.

He’s in the inner circle of all these soccer people is all I was saying.

Ok…well that is just as pointless, but ironically it’s better than the bonafides you initially spit out to try to make your 2nd hand opinion from some rando coach that you happen to know meaningful.

I’d venture that most of the parents on here “know a coach”

[Anonymous]

Hopefully, we will know the ECNL's decision next week. I am fine either way. Both have advantages. But if I target college recruiting, I would prefer my kid to stay in the older group for one more year so he can get much better training. The older team beats the younger team 5 goals easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully, we will know the ECNL's decision next week. I am fine either way. Both have advantages. But if I target college recruiting, I would prefer my kid to stay in the older group for one more year so he can get much better training. The older team beats the younger team 5 goals easily.

I know Q3/Q4 RL parents would like the switch soon, so their kids can join the younger NL team. We have 2 RL teams, and I think 3/4 Q3/Q4 RL players can transit to the younger NL team. And one RL player (Oct.) should be able to start in the younger NL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t the trapped players only allowed to play ecnl during the HS season? So then what happens to the kids who in the fall in VA played ECNL on the team below 3 are dropped to NCSL to allow 3 to play in the younger age group?

Doesn’t it mess with team cohesion?

The trapped player are only allowed to play with the u14 group when the rest of the team is playing high school. How each club handles that situation is handled differently. Some clubs don’t take advantage of the trapped players at all, which could skew u14 results across the league.

ECNL wouldnt'. be doing this if they thought their existing very limited solution was an actual solution. It's clear they don't like it.

ECNL has always had solutions for trapped players. The clubs also have/had solutions for trapped players.

ECNL has very little visibility into what clubs do. And clubs have very little visibility in what ECNL does.

The SY change was based out of ECNL honchos own experience. One has a kid that was a trapped 8th grader (boy). And now that the SY change seems to be assured for his HS years, ECNL’s leadership is already turning their advocacy / astroturf efforts to foreign players in NCAA (a largely boys only issue).

This was never about your kid. Never about girls (the only successful league in ECNL). Never about clubs (the clubs were only polled after ECNL started pushing the agenda in committee at USSF).

Even the cutoff date “debate” shows that it isn’t about our kids, it’s about their kids. I get it. If I had the ability to use the levers of power to create better opportunities for my own kid, I’d think about it for sure, and I might use those levers for personal benefit too. I’d like to think otherwise, but I just don’t know.

Don’t kid yourself. ECNL isn’t in the solutions game. It’s a league. Not an NGO or some charity organization.

I don’t care why ECNL is doing it. They just need to do it. Waiting around to make the change on some team in 2025 that will be changed in 2026 by the movement of trapped players is pointless to everyone’s development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully, we will know the ECNL's decision next week. I am fine either way. Both have advantages. But if I target college recruiting, I would prefer my kid to stay in the older group for one more year so he can get much better training. The older team beats the younger team 5 goals easily.

I know Q3/Q4 RL parents would like the switch soon, so their kids can join the younger NL team. We have 2 RL teams, and I think 3/4 Q3/Q4 RL players can transit to the younger NL team. And one RL player (Oct.) should be able to start in the younger NL team.

All clubs are different, I suppose. I don’t see our club looking at regional trapped players, just shifting national trapped players

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully, we will know the ECNL's decision next week. I am fine either way. Both have advantages. But if I target college recruiting, I would prefer my kid to stay in the older group for one more year so he can get much better training. The older team beats the younger team 5 goals easily.

I know Q3/Q4 RL parents would like the switch soon, so their kids can join the younger NL team. We have 2 RL teams, and I think 3/4 Q3/Q4 RL players can transit to the younger NL team. And one RL player (Oct.) should be able to start in the younger NL team.

All clubs are different, I suppose. I don’t see our club looking at regional trapped players, just shifting national trapped players

At my club the top 2014 team has 1 Q3/Q4 kid on the top team, and it's the same with the 13s, and theres only two with the 12s in NL. At these young pre-ecnl and early ecnl ages, there is a pretty big difference between Q4 and Q1 kids which I really do think has resulted in a lot of them not being on top teams merely because of age. Those kids will bump Q1 bench players off the top teams a year down, unquestionably. At older ages though I tend to agree, just shifting around of NL players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t the trapped players only allowed to play ecnl during the HS season? So then what happens to the kids who in the fall in VA played ECNL on the team below 3 are dropped to NCSL to allow 3 to play in the younger age group?

Doesn’t it mess with team cohesion?

The trapped player are only allowed to play with the u14 group when the rest of the team is playing high school. How each club handles that situation is handled differently. Some clubs don’t take advantage of the trapped players at all, which could skew u14 results across the league.

ECNL wouldnt'. be doing this if they thought their existing very limited solution was an actual solution. It's clear they don't like it.

ECNL has always had solutions for trapped players. The clubs also have/had solutions for trapped players.

ECNL has very little visibility into what clubs do. And clubs have very little visibility in what ECNL does.

The SY change was based out of ECNL honchos own experience. One has a kid that was a trapped 8th grader (boy). And now that the SY change seems to be assured for his HS years, ECNL’s leadership is already turning their advocacy / astroturf efforts to foreign players in NCAA (a largely boys only issue).

This was never about your kid. Never about girls (the only successful league in ECNL). Never about clubs (the clubs were only polled after ECNL started pushing the agenda in committee at USSF).

Even the cutoff date “debate” shows that it isn’t about our kids, it’s about their kids. I get it. If I had the ability to use the levers of power to create better opportunities for my own kid, I’d think about it for sure, and I might use those levers for personal benefit too. I’d like to think otherwise, but I just don’t know.

Don’t kid yourself. ECNL isn’t in the solutions game. It’s a league. Not an NGO or some charity organization.

I don’t care why ECNL is doing it. They just need to do it. Waiting around to make the change on some team in 2025 that will be changed in 2026 by the movement of trapped players is pointless to everyone’s development

It's not pointless. It's just another year of youth soccer. If you have good coaches/strong league, this BY/SY change shouldn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t the trapped players only allowed to play ecnl during the HS season? So then what happens to the kids who in the fall in VA played ECNL on the team below 3 are dropped to NCSL to allow 3 to play in the younger age group?

Doesn’t it mess with team cohesion?

The trapped player are only allowed to play with the u14 group when the rest of the team is playing high school. How each club handles that situation is handled differently. Some clubs don’t take advantage of the trapped players at all, which could skew u14 results across the league.

ECNL wouldnt'. be doing this if they thought their existing very limited solution was an actual solution. It's clear they don't like it.

ECNL has always had solutions for trapped players. The clubs also have/had solutions for trapped players.

ECNL has very little visibility into what clubs do. And clubs have very little visibility in what ECNL does.

The SY change was based out of ECNL honchos own experience. One has a kid that was a trapped 8th grader (boy). And now that the SY change seems to be assured for his HS years, ECNL’s leadership is already turning their advocacy / astroturf efforts to foreign players in NCAA (a largely boys only issue).

This was never about your kid. Never about girls (the only successful league in ECNL). Never about clubs (the clubs were only polled after ECNL started pushing the agenda in committee at USSF).

Even the cutoff date “debate” shows that it isn’t about our kids, it’s about their kids. I get it. If I had the ability to use the levers of power to create better opportunities for my own kid, I’d think about it for sure, and I might use those levers for personal benefit too. I’d like to think otherwise, but I just don’t know.

Don’t kid yourself. ECNL isn’t in the solutions game. It’s a league. Not an NGO or some charity organization.

I don’t care why ECNL is doing it. They just need to do it. Waiting around to make the change on some team in 2025 that will be changed in 2026 by the movement of trapped players is pointless to everyone’s development

It's not pointless. It's just another year of youth soccer. If you have good coaches/strong league, this BY/SY change shouldn't matter.

Exactly! I don’t understand what people mean by “wasted” year? What makes it a waste? If your child is part of a club that is helping them improve and doing extra work on the side they are not wasting anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren’t the trapped players only allowed to play ecnl during the HS season? So then what happens to the kids who in the fall in VA played ECNL on the team below 3 are dropped to NCSL to allow 3 to play in the younger age group?

Doesn’t it mess with team cohesion?

The trapped player are only allowed to play with the u14 group when the rest of the team is playing high school. How each club handles that situation is handled differently. Some clubs don’t take advantage of the trapped players at all, which could skew u14 results across the league.

ECNL wouldnt'. be doing this if they thought their existing very limited solution was an actual solution. It's clear they don't like it.

ECNL has always had solutions for trapped players. The clubs also have/had solutions for trapped players.

ECNL has very little visibility into what clubs do. And clubs have very little visibility in what ECNL does.

The SY change was based out of ECNL honchos own experience. One has a kid that was a trapped 8th grader (boy). And now that the SY change seems to be assured for his HS years, ECNL’s leadership is already turning their advocacy / astroturf efforts to foreign players in NCAA (a largely boys only issue).

This was never about your kid. Never about girls (the only successful league in ECNL). Never about clubs (the clubs were only polled after ECNL started pushing the agenda in committee at USSF).

Even the cutoff date “debate” shows that it isn’t about our kids, it’s about their kids. I get it. If I had the ability to use the levers of power to create better opportunities for my own kid, I’d think about it for sure, and I might use those levers for personal benefit too. I’d like to think otherwise, but I just don’t know.

Don’t kid yourself. ECNL isn’t in the solutions game. It’s a league. Not an NGO or some charity organization.

I don’t care why ECNL is doing it. They just need to do it. Waiting around to make the change on some team in 2025 that will be changed in 2026 by the movement of trapped players is pointless to everyone’s development

It's not pointless. It's just another year of youth soccer. If you have good coaches/strong league, this BY/SY change shouldn't matter.

Exactly! I don’t understand what people mean by “wasted” year? What makes it a waste? If your child is part of a club that is helping them improve and doing extra work on the side they are not wasting anything.

It is how you view it as "waste". Because we all know it is going to have big change after a year, then why we waste coach, players' time to build a team that will be broken soon. It is just like a company layoff, they will not hold for another year.

[Anonymous]

I do not think US Soccer will give ECNL a cold shoulder to deny any reasonable transit plan. It is just not politically correct and will make them look bad. Let's wait one more week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not think US Soccer will give ECNL a cold shoulder to deny any reasonable transit plan. It is just not politically correct and will make them look bad. Let's wait one more week.

US Club and ECNL are going to allow showcases/tournaments to be based of school year. This will ultimately fall on individual clubs to decide do they want to have some extra Q3/4 kids on their rosters that can’t play in league or nationals. But would allow teams to prepare a year early if they choose.

[Anonymous]

GA will allow biobanding up to 3 players starting Fall 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think US Soccer will give ECNL a cold shoulder to deny any reasonable transit plan. It is just not politically correct and will make them look bad. Let's wait one more week.

US Club and ECNL are going to allow showcases/tournaments to be based of school year. This will ultimately fall on individual clubs to decide do they want to have some extra Q3/4 kids on their rosters that can’t play in league or nationals. But would allow teams to prepare a year early if they choose.

Are you an insider, or is it from your imagination? It should be either all or nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think US Soccer will give ECNL a cold shoulder to deny any reasonable transit plan. It is just not politically correct and will make them look bad. Let's wait one more week.

US Club and ECNL are going to allow showcases/tournaments to be based of school year. This will ultimately fall on individual clubs to decide do they want to have some extra Q3/4 kids on their rosters that can’t play in league or nationals. But would allow teams to prepare a year early if they choose.

Are you an insider, or is it from your imagination? It should be either all or nothing.

We will all know soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Leave you address below…that’s how we know high your BS meter is