ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They just ran a simulation in Subbuteo, and it worked out so much better. They have the data to support a complete changing of the system. All the 4th quarter Subbuteo players were 75% more likely to get recruited, the 3rd quarter players who were safe from are now in jeopardy. But this move was never really about them so it doesn't matter.

🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread definitely jumped the shark

Comments are now just ludicrous

I heard that they are going to a hybrid birth and school year model where clubs will be able to maximize their profits by exploiting families in the most flexible ways possible. Should start Nov 1 and new rosters have already been drawn up...I've seen them...all of them. I heard there were big cuts for your dear kids!

I also just had breakfast with the ECNL presidents neighbor, and he said that he heard from the neighbor on the other side that the president said that he thinks he will be rich soon. Exciting stuff.

I just read about this on another big soccer forum. It's spot on!

It’s not really a hybrid, it is biobanding plus graduation year (not school year), with some extra roster spots for Q1 kids being able playing down on a modified seasonal club pass basis.

[Anonymous]

This is going to be a zombie thread if USSoccer puts the kibosh on the SY social justice movement of the loud minority.

Next July…same talking points, same hysterics,
same rumors and ambiguous declaratives based on 7-degrees-of-separation-from-jason/ralph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be a zombie thread if USSoccer puts the kibosh on the SY social justice movement of the loud minority.

Next July…same talking points, same hysterics,
same rumors and ambiguous declaratives based on 7-degrees-of-separation-from-jason/ralph.

You're clearly cheering against the change, but you should realize that you unknowingly point out a good reason for the change. The problems with BY won't go away. People will keep complaining about it, and eventually the hold outs will decide that the one-time mess of the change is worth ending the problems and the constant complaints. Unless someone starts convincing people that BY is actually better, which, as the podcast noted, no one is arguing anymore, it's just a matter of time before it's changed. Why delay the inevitable?

[Anonymous]

Just trading certain problems for others, there will still be issues surrounding relative age effect if this shifts to SY, you'll have superior players that are essentially a full year up on some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just trading certain problems for others, there will still be issues surrounding relative age effect if this shifts to SY, you'll have superior players that are essentially a full year up on some.

RAE will always be there. They only moved the cutoff to 8/1, which will still be capped at one year. This will reduce the current 30% of trapped players to a few. For those few trapped players, they can always choose to play up (if they are capable) or play down to remain in the same grade. The grad year change is good to most trapped players, so they can avoid 8th grade with no team, 10th grade with no recruiting, 11th grade with little recruiting exposure and 12th grade lose their teams and have to join a new team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be a zombie thread if USSoccer puts the kibosh on the SY social justice movement of the loud minority.

Next July…same talking points, same hysterics,
same rumors and ambiguous declaratives based on 7-degrees-of-separation-from-jason/ralph.

You're clearly cheering against the change, but you should realize that you unknowingly point out a good reason for the change. The problems with BY won't go away. People will keep complaining about it, and eventually the hold outs will decide that the one-time mess of the change is worth ending the problems and the constant complaints. Unless someone starts convincing people that BY is actually better, which, as the podcast noted, no one is arguing anymore, it's just a matter of time before it's changed. Why delay the inevitable?

Do you get $1 every time you say "podcast"? 😆

Going from BY to SY just kicks the can sideways. Not even down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trading certain problems for others, there will still be issues surrounding relative age effect if this shifts to SY, you'll have superior players that are essentially a full year up on some.

RAE will always be there. They only moved the cutoff to 8/1, which will still be capped at one year. This will reduce the current 30% of trapped players to a few. For those few trapped players, they can always choose to play up (if they are capable) or play down to remain in the same grade. The grad year change is good to most trapped players, so they can avoid 8th grade with no team, 10th grade with no recruiting, 11th grade with little recruiting exposure and 12th grade lose their teams and have to join a new team.

Those bottom half players who struggle when their entire team has committed won't have anywhere to play anyways with the roster reductions.

[Anonymous]

What are the roster reductions going to be ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trading certain problems for others, there will still be issues surrounding relative age effect if this shifts to SY, you'll have superior players that are essentially a full year up on some.

RAE will always be there. They only moved the cutoff to 8/1, which will still be capped at one year. This will reduce the current 30% of trapped players to a few. For those few trapped players, they can always choose to play up (if they are capable) or play down to remain in the same grade. The grad year change is good to most trapped players, so they can avoid 8th grade with no team, 10th grade with no recruiting, 11th grade with little recruiting exposure and 12th grade lose their teams and have to join a new team.

Those bottom half players who struggle when their entire team has committed won't have anywhere to play anyways with the roster reductions.

You just gave a strong biased opinion why they deserve to suffer. You are so sick. I hope you hide it well in the real life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the roster reductions going to be ?

28 player caps, some programs right now have rosters well over 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just trading certain problems for others, there will still be issues surrounding relative age effect if this shifts to SY, you'll have superior players that are essentially a full year up on some.

RAE will always be there. They only moved the cutoff to 8/1, which will still be capped at one year. This will reduce the current 30% of trapped players to a few. For those few trapped players, they can always choose to play up (if they are capable) or play down to remain in the same grade. The grad year change is good to most trapped players, so they can avoid 8th grade with no team, 10th grade with no recruiting, 11th grade with little recruiting exposure and 12th grade lose their teams and have to join a new team.

Those bottom half players who struggle when their entire team has committed won't have anywhere to play anyways with the roster reductions.

You just gave a strong biased opinion why they deserve to suffer. You are so sick. I hope you hide it well in the real life.

Oh honey, reality is what it is whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Why do people get so offended when people are talking about realities?

Why is the ECNL pushing this? They're doing so because this benefits THEIR platform and what they push, collegiate soccer.

What was the goal of the initial change years ago? To align with how the world works, and FIFA.

Everybody wants to give reasons to change this, but the primary reason to change it is for collegiate play, that system is changing. Roster numbers aren't going to be what they used to be, therefore the population of players getting selected to play in college goes down. This argument of trying to benefit trapped players so they can be seen for less spots is wild. If a player is good enough, they'll be seen if college is what they want to do. Making changes for an end goal that is going to be even harder to obtain than it already is and not knowing what the real future holds for collegiate soccer is wild.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do people get so offended when people are talking about realities?

Why is the ECNL pushing this? They're doing so because this benefits THEIR platform and what they push, collegiate soccer.

What was the goal of the initial change years ago? To align with how the world works, and FIFA.

Everybody wants to give reasons to change this, but the primary reason to change it is for collegiate play, that system is changing. Roster numbers aren't going to be what they used to be, therefore the population of players getting selected to play in college goes down. This argument of trying to benefit trapped players so they can be seen for less spots is wild. If a player is good enough, they'll be seen if college is what they want to do. Making changes for an end goal that is going to be even harder to obtain than it already is and not knowing what the real future holds for collegiate soccer is wild.

Yet your rationale includes college soccer changing. Did you purposely leave out that if roster sizes reduce especially on the girls side the number of available scholarships could greatly increase! Wow think about how that marketing changes. Spend all this $$ for ECNL and the number of full scholarships available goes through the roof.

[Anonymous]

Just because a school has 28 roster spots does not mean that they will give 28 fully funded spots, and the amount of schools that will carry that many aren't a lot.