Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Once we hear that GA/MLSN go SY, thread is dead. It’s coming |
Anonymous
But wait. What about August kids? And trapped kids this year?? This thread will never die… |
Anonymous
| ECNL still has to release their specific plans for 25/26/27 |
Anonymous
| Given that 95+% MLSN kids playing USClub or USYS in their U7-U12 years, there is no option other than to adopt the 9/1 cutoff. |
Anonymous
| Only option would be Sept to Dec kids to go from U11 to U13 directly and skip their U12 year. So not an option. |
Anonymous
|
I asked the same question several pages ago but didn't get an answer. (Surprising given people know everything here) How is it going to work if all Ulittles in SY and MLSN stays BY? For a U12 "Pre-mlsn' team , are they breaking up the team into Sep-Dec and Jan-Aug ? And what do they do with the Jan-Aug players ? |
Anonymous
That's not happening. |
Anonymous
|
MLS Next has 3 great weaknesses if remaining at BY: 1) MLS Next start at U13, while all his feeders up to U12 (USYS, USCS, AYSO,even REC) will be SY. 2) ECNL, ECRL, NPL will be SY at U13 and above, so they offer a continuous and clear path for kids coming from younger ages. 3) The girls will be almost completely SY (except GA), so for clubs will be easier to arrange and organize all ages at SY. |
Anonymous
|
If MLS Next decides BY there will be a huge problem for clubs (non Academy) with transition at U12-U13.
Up to U12 being SY and switching U13 to BY is a nightmare. And only for best teams at any club !!! (the 2nd and rest of the teams would remain SY) By the way, YNT teams are out of this issue, they can pick up 20 players playing SY or BY equally. |
Anonymous
💯 |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]In the big picture why does it matter if a league uses BY to pick a small handfull of players? Wouldnt it make it easier to play SY and focus in on the tiny pool of players who play up and ALSO are starters? vs the half a million kids in the sea of players??
The we need BY to identify players seems like a bad argument to me. [/quote] That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote] That’s not what happened…where do you come up with this?! The distribution on the YNT improved after BY switch.[/quote]False[/quote] Not false…you’re an idiot [/quote]No, it is false. Very clearly false.[/quote] You’re referring to the finnegan studies. If you actually read the data and the analysis, you’ll see that birth quartiles on YNT were smoothed after the change to BY. Before BY, Q1 was under represented.[/quote]No[/quote] Yes…but you seem to be convinced that your 4th hand knowledge is unquestionable…as it’s goes, often wrong never in doubt…so you go on ahead. 🤣[/quote] None of us did the study ourselves, so yes we are often relying on studies published by others who actually did the research themselves. So it’s never going to be firsthand information. It’s always going to be secondhand when you’re demanding the information in support. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=Anonymous]That was supposed to be the point of switching to BY to begin with, the intention was to be able to "identify and better understand RAE" so that it would improve our national teams, what ended up happening was that they lost almost all Q4 kids from the YNT, but if a kid made it that far under the circumstances they usually made the team but that is a whole other topic. Q1 kids that are actually good and not relying on their age associated size advantage should be able to play up as well. If we care about our national teams and don't have some myopic view because we are deluded into thinking our kid is YNT material, we will want all of our kids to be challenged at home before we send them abroad. [/quote]Tru dat.[/quote]
That’s not what happened. Just because someone posted the updated study link and then made a claim about said link doesn’t mean they were honest or correct. The update doesn’t show YNT losing “almost all Q4 kids” - not even close. Read the data and study yourself before you make asinine claims that are counter to the data you’re referencing. |
Anonymous
Wut? MLSN is a pro pathway. They’re aligned with FIFA not rec leagues. Don’t be stupid. It would be irrational for them to make a switch. The reason USSF threw their hands up and said “you F’er pick for yourself” is explicitly because not all the member bodies agreed…the ones that wanted a switch have already made their decisions public, those that didn’t haven’t made an announcement…because there is nothing for them to announce… |
Anonymous
I BELIEVE! BY FOR OUR KIDS! PLEASE ALLOW OUR KIDS TO PLAY AGAINST KIDS A GRADE BELOW! |
Anonymous
They are a pro pathway league, not a pro pathway club. Kids play for clubs not leagues. So if all U12 kids playing with clubs are SY, you think the clubs are going to reorganize U13 year to BY. Not a chance. |