ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not state cutoffs - data about actual number of August kids that enroll right upon turning 5 even in 9/1 minimum cutoff states. In many cases those kids aren’t enrolling in K until the next year. 9/1 cutoff is irrelevant if majority of August kids don’t actually enroll until the next year.

Self selecting to hold your kid back was a choice. It's not the world's job to cater to your held back kid. For the state's that legit have earlier cutoffs that is different.

No - the point is that 9/1 doesn’t do the best job at reducing trap players if most August kids don’t enter K right at 5. Meaning 9/1 isn’t best date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not state cutoffs - data about actual number of August kids that enroll right upon turning 5 even in 9/1 minimum cutoff states. In many cases those kids aren’t enrolling in K until the next year. 9/1 cutoff is irrelevant if majority of August kids don’t actually enroll until the next year.

Self selecting to hold your kid back was a choice. It's not the world's job to cater to your held back kid. For the state's that legit have earlier cutoffs that is different.

No - the point is that 9/1 doesn’t do the best job at reducing trap players if most August kids don’t enter K right at 5. Meaning 9/1 isn’t best date.

Based on what anecdotal evidence? My daughter's team has an August player on grade level currently with the rest of the team. (Mine is a grade lower) And two of her friends in her class are aug birthdays both almost a year younger than her because she is an October Birthday. Understanding this is a small sample, but yours most likely is too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I listen to soccer podcasts and college coaches on X recruiting from D2. The more I think these ECNL to grad year is a real possibility.

If recruiting of ECNL goes down because most colleges do not want to waste the funds watching high school kids then maybe ECNL will want the older grad year kids. Does a holdback who’s a 19 year old senior now make them a more desired product?

I’m not for or against just trying to understand why ECNL would not goto grad year at least for showcases.

Ugh? Wut?

You know colleges recruited just fine pre 2016 SY and just find post 2016 BY and they’ll recruit just fine in 2026 BY/SY landscape.

Coaches scout players, not birth months, not graduation years.

College recruiting is changing and will continue as we see a new college landscape unfold. Smaller rosters, player portal, schools leaving the ncaa.

All true. Not sure how that connects to ECNL recruiting going down. I guess you’re just saying the NCAA is a mess and future is unknowable? Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for teams that have already formed BY teams at tryouts, it’s not difficult to add trapped players to their rosters for tournaments and showcases, and decide whether they want to use them or not in 2025.

If no league game, I would rather have my kid play in the older group. The level is much higher. It will prepare him better for college recruiting next year.

They could do both play league games with older team and play tournaments with SY team. If this is real.

That's a lousy cop out. Hard to establish chemistry with players when you only are with them for a weekend. That doesn't put those kids at showcases in a position to do well in front of scouts.

Just rip the band-aid off.

Hopefully they have laid out a good plan to US Soccer and I am sure that it has to have been discussed before next week with them. Just go 100% SY next year and be done with it.

What do you all not understand about USSF saying no changes for 25/26?

Do you think USSF didn’t mean it? They wrote that in there SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the ECNL clubs SPECIFICALLY ASKED for that time when USSF polled the clubs.

ECNL and USClub were trying to force an immediate shift to SY. They own the competition committee at USSF. Once it got to the board level (Cindy Cone is affiliated with an ECNL club!) the board said slow your roll, let’s check with the people responsible for making this change.

They polled the clubs, the clubs from all bodies and leagues and found 41% prefer BY, 47% prefer SY and 12% prefer “other.” So 53% of the clubs didn’t want SY to 47% that wanted SY.

82% of the clubs said they were not ready for a change!

USSF said “starting in the Fall of 2026 members and leagues will have reasonable flexibility…”

So what do you think ECNL is going to present to USSF to get an exception that they didn’t already considering the President of USSF is ECNL, the competition committee that pushed for a straight SY change is ECNL and US Club. And that when USSF went around the committee and the leagues and polled the clubs themselves they found that 82% of the clubs wanted to wait and that the SY change was not nearly as widely held as ECNL claimed.

As someone who actually was a participant in the survey let me share some facts with you. The 12% other was a variety of different opinions. Such as grad year, BY plus biobanding, many different directors opinions. But putting that 12% with pro birth year is not correct. It would align more with SY than straight up BY.

Also the survey which took place in the fall asked if clubs were immediately ready as of that day to switch to SY. So the fact almost 20% said yes should tell you something as well.

All that other stuff ECNL I do not know as my club is not associated with ECNL. Just providing you with some insight.

I was also on that survey. And you’re right “other” was a number of options. NONE of which were more aligned with SY. The only one remotely similar was GY. All other options were status quo with biobanding or waivers, or input.

It’s absolutely fair to say 53% were not for SY. To say otherwise is total mental gymnastics and wishcasting.

With that logic you could make the same argument that 59% of clubs were not for BY?
12% other means they wanted something other that BY/SY so they were not in favor of either system.

Sure. Agreed. I’m not a BYstan.

But as you posted with your logic, many of the options were BY + Bioband, BY + waiver, etc. so hard to split that hair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, for teams that have already formed BY teams at tryouts, it’s not difficult to add trapped players to their rosters for tournaments and showcases, and decide whether they want to use them or not in 2025.

If no league game, I would rather have my kid play in the older group. The level is much higher. It will prepare him better for college recruiting next year.

They could do both play league games with older team and play tournaments with SY team. If this is real.

That's a lousy cop out. Hard to establish chemistry with players when you only are with them for a weekend. That doesn't put those kids at showcases in a position to do well in front of scouts.

Just rip the band-aid off.

Hopefully they have laid out a good plan to US Soccer and I am sure that it has to have been discussed before next week with them. Just go 100% SY next year and be done with it.

What do you all not understand about USSF saying no changes for 25/26?

Do you think USSF didn’t mean it? They wrote that in there SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE the ECNL clubs SPECIFICALLY ASKED for that time when USSF polled the clubs.

ECNL and USClub were trying to force an immediate shift to SY. They own the competition committee at USSF. Once it got to the board level (Cindy Cone is affiliated with an ECNL club!) the board said slow your roll, let’s check with the people responsible for making this change.

They polled the clubs, the clubs from all bodies and leagues and found 41% prefer BY, 47% prefer SY and 12% prefer “other.” So 53% of the clubs didn’t want SY to 47% that wanted SY.

82% of the clubs said they were not ready for a change!

USSF said “starting in the Fall of 2026 members and leagues will have reasonable flexibility…”

So what do you think ECNL is going to present to USSF to get an exception that they didn’t already considering the President of USSF is ECNL, the competition committee that pushed for a straight SY change is ECNL and US Club. And that when USSF went around the committee and the leagues and polled the clubs themselves they found that 82% of the clubs wanted to wait and that the SY change was not nearly as widely held as ECNL claimed.

As someone who actually was a participant in the survey let me share some facts with you. The 12% other was a variety of different opinions. Such as grad year, BY plus biobanding, many different directors opinions. But putting that 12% with pro birth year is not correct. It would align more with SY than straight up BY.

Also the survey which took place in the fall asked if clubs were immediately ready as of that day to switch to SY. So the fact almost 20% said yes should tell you something as well.

All that other stuff ECNL I do not know as my club is not associated with ECNL. Just providing you with some insight.

You do realize AYSO is was SY until 24m ago right? That’s an easy yes. And 90% of soccer clubs are not national league (GA/ECNL/MLSN/etc) where rosters decisions mean a great deal. And many in house leagues, rec leagues were already SY?

18% is telling you exactly what it should…that 18% could make an easy switch in the next season and that 82% couldn’t. I think you’re reading your opinion way too much into results that sound pretty normal considering the landscape.

The point was 82% is misleading. Because it was those clubs were not “immediately” ready. Clubs had the option to put 3 months/6 months/ 12 months and immediately. So we are not getting accurate data. What percentage from each selection was not provided. Only that majority was not immediately ready.

Yea…I think USSF made the point clearly, and took the option that gave even the least ready the time needed. I think they took the prudent approach. Not sure you’re making the point you think you are.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe this topic is still being debated. If ECNL is doing it the do it and shut up. If not doing it then just make a public announcement. Move on!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand a move to 9/1. It was 8/1 for decades before the 2017 change to BY without issue. 8/1 captures virtually all school registration cutoffs and 9/1 does not. For a national cutoff, 8/1 is most comprehensive.

Completely agree. Seems like a no brainer to me. Wouldn’t you pick the date that covers the most kids (and was the cutoff in the past)? And, if the ultimate goal is GY, then why not use 8/1.

They feel more kids would be reverse trapped. Meaning they are born in August 2011 and are in 8th grade currently rather than 7th grade.

WTH is “reverse trapped” 😅

Why are we making our kids, parents and players embrace victimhood?

“Oh no, I’m trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

“Oh no, I’m reverse trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

This is empowered by this knobs at ECNL…just play!

Why is everyone jostling for some stupid size advantage that they turn their nose up when it’s against them, and then beat the drums of war when it’s for them? None of it makes a lick of difference for 99% of the players. Only those on the margin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe this topic is still being debated. If ECNL is doing it the do it and shut up. If not doing it then just make a public announcement. Move on!!

If nothing changes, they would already make an announcement for PR sake.

There could be some back door politics. Hope we will know soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand a move to 9/1. It was 8/1 for decades before the 2017 change to BY without issue. 8/1 captures virtually all school registration cutoffs and 9/1 does not. For a national cutoff, 8/1 is most comprehensive.

Completely agree. Seems like a no brainer to me. Wouldn’t you pick the date that covers the most kids (and was the cutoff in the past)? And, if the ultimate goal is GY, then why not use 8/1.

They feel more kids would be reverse trapped. Meaning they are born in August 2011 and are in 8th grade currently rather than 7th grade.

WTH is “reverse trapped” 😅

Why are we making our kids, parents and players embrace victimhood?

“Oh no, I’m trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

“Oh no, I’m reverse trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

This is empowered by this knobs at ECNL…just play!

Why is everyone jostling for some stupid size advantage that they turn their nose up when it’s against them, and then beat the drums of war when it’s for them? None of it makes a lick of difference for 99% of the players. Only those on the margin.

Fact: 80% of ECNL players are Q1/Q2

[Anonymous]

My kid is the only Q4 on her ecnl team. All others Q1/Q2. So 94% of her team is Q1/Q2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand a move to 9/1. It was 8/1 for decades before the 2017 change to BY without issue. 8/1 captures virtually all school registration cutoffs and 9/1 does not. For a national cutoff, 8/1 is most comprehensive.

Completely agree. Seems like a no brainer to me. Wouldn’t you pick the date that covers the most kids (and was the cutoff in the past)? And, if the ultimate goal is GY, then why not use 8/1.

They feel more kids would be reverse trapped. Meaning they are born in August 2011 and are in 8th grade currently rather than 7th grade.

WTH is “reverse trapped” 😅

Why are we making our kids, parents and players embrace victimhood?

“Oh no, I’m trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

“Oh no, I’m reverse trapped, I can’t play soccer now.”

This is empowered by this knobs at ECNL…just play!

Why is everyone jostling for some stupid size advantage that they turn their nose up when it’s against them, and then beat the drums of war when it’s for them? None of it makes a lick of difference for 99% of the players. Only those on the margin.

Fact: 80% of ECNL players are Q1/Q2

BY parents are gonna say that’s obviously because the best players are born Q1 or Q2 and don’t ask questions because it’ll start triggering them

[Anonymous]

Let’s not go down the 8/1 vs 9/1 rabbit hole. Anyone with a brain knows it should be 8/1 like it was before. But we are talking about ECNL leadership so they will find a way to over think this and mess it up too.

[Anonymous]

Why not just use H1 and H2 :eye roll:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not just use H1 and H2 :eye roll:

I don’t know what that means, but screw it, I’m in!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is the only Q4 on her ecnl team. All others Q1/Q2. So 94% of her team is Q1/Q2

.

Similar in our team U12.

Our roster is 17 players. 16 of them are Q1/Q2, so 94%.

There are no Q4s.

My son is the only Q3.

He is the youngest but the top scorer.

I can picture him if SY, he would destroy the
opponents’ defenders.