ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What writing?

That it's "not happening"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

The leagues dictate the rules most clubs are at their mercy especially when dealing with ECNL or MLSN. They do not care how much extra work it is for a club they expect you to figure it out.

MLSN/ GA will stay BY GA will add biobanding starting Fall 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

Difficult, for instance our club’s Academy 1 has joined MLSNext Tier 2, Academy 2 ECNL-R, and rest of the lower teams NPL.

For a same club having two different age bracketing systems (BY and SY) would be difficult to handle.

What other youth leagues aside MLSNext Tier 1 will remain BY? I don’t know anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

What youth leagues aren’t under USYS, US Club or AYSO that they could partner with nationally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

The leagues dictate the rules most clubs are at their mercy especially when dealing with ECNL or MLSN. They do not care how much extra work it is for a club they expect you to figure it out.

MLSN/ GA will stay BY GA will add biobanding starting Fall 26.

lol why would they wait until the fall of ‘26?

[Anonymous]

Not sad for competition and variety to enter the youth soccer world. If MLSN and GA stay BY and ECNL goes SY, it’s the perfect platform for kids to be seen in their element, whether they fit in the SY or BY environment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

What youth leagues aren’t under USYS, US Club or AYSO that they could partner with nationally?

Same question. Because of feeders, SY will encompass the whole ecosystem except mls academies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sad for competition and variety to enter the youth soccer world. If MLSN and GA stay BY and ECNL goes SY, it’s the perfect platform for kids to be seen in their element, whether they fit in the SY or BY environment

After 14/15 for girls…the age band isn’t as important.

After 15/16 for boys, the age band isn’t as important.

If Rec + ECNL goes SY and GA/MLSN stays BY, ECNL will lose out.

On the girls side, ECNL is THE platform for college recruiting. It’s nearly maxed out its marketshare. There isn’t anywhere more to gain, but it is a competitive environment with changes in the recruiting game outside of ECNLs control. GA is laying foundations for a youth-to-pro pathway. This will ultimately prove to be a good source for college recruiters too, because the type of player that aims high, but falls short, is a phenomenal college soccer player. ECNL is destined to give
ground on the girls side. Maybe not a lot, but some, and when a dam has a crack…(see DA for example).

On the boys side, MLSN is a superior platform. Not only does it have a pro-pathway, but it is also more attractive on the college recruiting side. The ECNL switch to SY doesn’t really affect the college recruiting process - as coaches are able to understand graduating years without a decoder ring. ECNL doesn’t seem primed to gain marketshare here unless they address the pro-pathway issue, which they’re trying to do by supporting USL, and tie in with the USL-Youth platform (all USL Youth affiliated clubs are USCS / ECNL/RL).

The boys side is where this fight really is, and BY/SY is just a way they’re differentiating. ECNL is trying to align with the “feedstock” of
rec, and the pro-pathway of the “minor league grinders.” Whereas MLSN is more aligned internationally and with actual first league professional clubs.

ECNL is willing to give up some of its dominance on the girls side to make gains on the boys side. Financially, if US soccer gets its act together with solidarity and development fees, ECNL is right to attempt some gains on the boys side. Via USL is probably dumb, but you have to start somewhere when your competitor IS the top league.

It would suck to be a u11 or below girl / parent today though, because ECNL is going to allow that side of their business to become less reliable with regard to outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

What youth leagues aren’t under USYS, US Club or AYSO that they could partner with nationally?

Same question. Because of feeders, SY will encompass the whole ecosystem except mls academies

SAY is largely rec. USSSA has some low-level travel like NCL, as well as NDL/DPL/EA. ANFEEU runs Latin leagues for youth players
- but those typically are 2 year age bands (ie 2010/11, 2012/13).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sad for competition and variety to enter the youth soccer world. If MLSN and GA stay BY and ECNL goes SY, it’s the perfect platform for kids to be seen in their element, whether they fit in the SY or BY environment

After 14/15 for girls…the age band isn’t as important.

After 15/16 for boys, the age band isn’t as important.

If Rec + ECNL goes SY and GA/MLSN stays BY, ECNL will lose out.

On the girls side, ECNL is THE platform for college recruiting. It’s nearly maxed out its marketshare. There isn’t anywhere more to gain, but it is a competitive environment with changes in the recruiting game outside of ECNLs control. GA is laying foundations for a youth-to-pro pathway. This will ultimately prove to be a good source for college recruiters too, because the type of player that aims high, but falls short, is a phenomenal college soccer player. ECNL is destined to give
ground on the girls side. Maybe not a lot, but some, and when a dam has a crack…(see DA for example).

On the boys side, MLSN is a superior platform. Not only does it have a pro-pathway, but it is also more attractive on the college recruiting side. The ECNL switch to SY doesn’t really affect the college recruiting process - as coaches are able to understand graduating years without a decoder ring. ECNL doesn’t seem primed to gain marketshare here unless they address the pro-pathway issue, which they’re trying to do by supporting USL, and tie in with the USL-Youth platform (all USL Youth affiliated clubs are USCS / ECNL/RL).

The boys side is where this fight really is, and BY/SY is just a way they’re differentiating. ECNL is trying to align with the “feedstock” of
rec, and the pro-pathway of the “minor league grinders.” Whereas MLSN is more aligned internationally and with actual first league professional clubs.

ECNL is willing to give up some of its dominance on the girls side to make gains on the boys side. Financially, if US soccer gets its act together with solidarity and development fees, ECNL is right to attempt some gains on the boys side. Via USL is probably dumb, but you have to start somewhere when your competitor IS the top league.

It would suck to be a u11 or below girl / parent today though, because ECNL is going to allow that side of their business to become less reliable with regard to outcomes.

Stupid piece of crap at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sad for competition and variety to enter the youth soccer world. If MLSN and GA stay BY and ECNL goes SY, it’s the perfect platform for kids to be seen in their element, whether they fit in the SY or BY environment

After 14/15 for girls…the age band isn’t as important.

After 15/16 for boys, the age band isn’t as important.

If Rec + ECNL goes SY and GA/MLSN stays BY, ECNL will lose out.

On the girls side, ECNL is THE platform for college recruiting. It’s nearly maxed out its marketshare. There isn’t anywhere more to gain, but it is a competitive environment with changes in the recruiting game outside of ECNLs control. GA is laying foundations for a youth-to-pro pathway. This will ultimately prove to be a good source for college recruiters too, because the type of player that aims high, but falls short, is a phenomenal college soccer player. ECNL is destined to give
ground on the girls side. Maybe not a lot, but some, and when a dam has a crack…(see DA for example).

On the boys side, MLSN is a superior platform. Not only does it have a pro-pathway, but it is also more attractive on the college recruiting side. The ECNL switch to SY doesn’t really affect the college recruiting process - as coaches are able to understand graduating years without a decoder ring. ECNL doesn’t seem primed to gain marketshare here unless they address the pro-pathway issue, which they’re trying to do by supporting USL, and tie in with the USL-Youth platform (all USL Youth affiliated clubs are USCS / ECNL/RL).

The boys side is where this fight really is, and BY/SY is just a way they’re differentiating. ECNL is trying to align with the “feedstock” of
rec, and the pro-pathway of the “minor league grinders.” Whereas MLSN is more aligned internationally and with actual first league professional clubs.

ECNL is willing to give up some of its dominance on the girls side to make gains on the boys side. Financially, if US soccer gets its act together with solidarity and development fees, ECNL is right to attempt some gains on the boys side. Via USL is probably dumb, but you have to start somewhere when your competitor IS the top league.

It would suck to be a u11 or below girl / parent today though, because ECNL is going to allow that side of their business to become less reliable with regard to outcomes.

This was a lot….please break up so we can get to 1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sad for competition and variety to enter the youth soccer world. If MLSN and GA stay BY and ECNL goes SY, it’s the perfect platform for kids to be seen in their element, whether they fit in the SY or BY environment

After 14/15 for girls…the age band isn’t as important.

After 15/16 for boys, the age band isn’t as important.

If Rec + ECNL goes SY and GA/MLSN stays BY, ECNL will lose out.

On the girls side, ECNL is THE platform for college recruiting. It’s nearly maxed out its marketshare. There isn’t anywhere more to gain, but it is a competitive environment with changes in the recruiting game outside of ECNLs control. GA is laying foundations for a youth-to-pro pathway. This will ultimately prove to be a good source for college recruiters too, because the type of player that aims high, but falls short, is a phenomenal college soccer player. ECNL is destined to give
ground on the girls side. Maybe not a lot, but some, and when a dam has a crack…(see DA for example).

On the boys side, MLSN is a superior platform. Not only does it have a pro-pathway, but it is also more attractive on the college recruiting side. The ECNL switch to SY doesn’t really affect the college recruiting process - as coaches are able to understand graduating years without a decoder ring. ECNL doesn’t seem primed to gain marketshare here unless they address the pro-pathway issue, which they’re trying to do by supporting USL, and tie in with the USL-Youth platform (all USL Youth affiliated clubs are USCS / ECNL/RL).

The boys side is where this fight really is, and BY/SY is just a way they’re differentiating. ECNL is trying to align with the “feedstock” of
rec, and the pro-pathway of the “minor league grinders.” Whereas MLSN is more aligned internationally and with actual first league professional clubs.

ECNL is willing to give up some of its dominance on the girls side to make gains on the boys side. Financially, if US soccer gets its act together with solidarity and development fees, ECNL is right to attempt some gains on the boys side. Via USL is probably dumb, but you have to start somewhere when your competitor IS the top league.

It would suck to be a u11 or below girl / parent today though, because ECNL is going to allow that side of their business to become less reliable with regard to outcomes.

Let me guess you have a Jan - March son…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

What youth leagues aren’t under USYS, US Club or AYSO that they could partner with nationally?

Same question. Because of feeders, SY will encompass the whole ecosystem except mls academies

Once this goes through, q4 kids are going to have to go from u12 to u14 when they jump to mls next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be surprised to see 9/1 across every platform. The leagues and coaches were already complaining about having to do more work to accommodate the change, now that it seems official, I can't imagine they would want to have 2 different registrations and the work to compete them separate would involve.

Yeah, one problem is if you do school year for U8-U12 (which apparently everyone will be doing now), it is pretty challenging to then move to BY for U13-U19.

MLSN has already started partnering with other youth leagues. They will have their MLSN/MLSN2 clubs play BY in those leagues.

What youth leagues aren’t under USYS, US Club or AYSO that they could partner with nationally?

I’m too lazy to look it up but I’m pretty sure MLSN posted something about it.