ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

To me, the statement almost sounded like they were ok with creating more RAE as long as the NT were older lol

[Anonymous]

GA is going SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

I recall no justification for the switch to BY in 2016 other than wanting to align to with other countries for international competition.

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

To me, the statement almost sounded like they were ok with creating more RAE as long as the NT were older lol

https://leagues.bluesombrero.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1025782

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

I recall no justification for the switch to BY in 2016 other than wanting to align to with other countries for international competition.

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

To me, the statement almost sounded like they were ok with creating more RAE as long as the NT were older lol

https://leagues.bluesombrero.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1025782

What a load of sh*t!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

I recall no justification for the switch to BY in 2016 other than wanting to align to with other countries for international competition.

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

To me, the statement almost sounded like they were ok with creating more RAE as long as the NT were older lol

https://leagues.bluesombrero.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1025782

What a load of sh*t!

That's what most people said in 2016. But the decision was set in stone by US Soccer - and nothing could be done about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a November Bday (2011) ECNL that started school early and is already in 8th grade . Assuming all good if they just let them play up with their current team. but if let’s say, 5-6 2010s come down in fall 2026, could they move her down to the team below, where should would now be in 10th grade playing with 9th graders….could cause some recruiting issues not being with your grade.

Here is what I am piecing together on all of this:

1. August birthdays (the loudest opposition to this change) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) now become the youngest in the team - never good, but someone always has to be, and (b) may not be playing with their school grade, if the county has an 8/1 or earlier cutoff - which results in the “trapped” issue - but it is a far fewer number than BY.

2. September and maybe some October birthdays (with kids who are ahead a grade year in school due to county cutoff or other reasons) - unhappy for 2 reasons: (a) may no longer get to play with their school year, because as you note - they may get “pushed off” their teams as the Q4 players from the year above move down, and (b) if they play with the grade below them, while they will be the oldest, there are recruiting impacts.

3. Jan/Feb birthdays - upset because they are no longer the oldest, with all advantages that come along with that (including perceived impact to chances of playing up a year).

Any other months I missed who have been whining about this?

I recall no justification for the switch to BY in 2016 other than wanting to align to with other countries for international competition.

On the other side, all NOV/DEC (and many OCT/SEPT, depending on school district) birthdays are celebrating - they are no longer trapped, they now get to play with their grade and they become the oldest. This is a win all around for these months! Lucky ducks!

But at the end of the day, there is no solution that is 100%. I am not “old enough” in this soccer world to know why the prior SY model switched to BY in the first place, but SY does overall seem to have the least number of months with negative impact. (And I am a parent of a child who is negatively impacted…. So just trying to stay unbiased).

It changed to BY because a small group of people believed it would help our NT long term…they were wrong and we had to change

They weren’t wrong. It has absolutely helped our national teams. That isn’t even a debate. Only people with an anterior motive, or are stuck in 2000 think our NTs weren’t aided by the BY switch.

Nope didn't help men's and women's national teams and it wasn't meant to. It was meant for the kids national teams to be slightly older. Essentially a goal that at the end of the day means nothing.

Someone important in US soccer at the time really might have had ulterior motives, you can do the research.

The German with an LA wife could have had all the anterior and interior motives he wanted, but if you reread the poorly worded statement introducing BY, it wasn't meant to reduce RAE and get a better month distribution of kids in national teams it was merely meant to get older ones, a zero sum game.

Some people want to be smarter than they so much so that they make boneheaded decisions going against logic because if it works out they can seem smart.

To me, the statement almost sounded like they were ok with creating more RAE as long as the NT were older lol

https://leagues.bluesombrero.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1025782

What does this mean for my son/daughter?

If your son/daughter is born in January through July, they will go up an age group just as any other year. (If they are U13 now, they will be U14 in the fall 2016). If your son/daughter is born in August through December, they will go up 'two age groups'. (If they are U9 now, they will be in U11 in the fall 2016). This may seem challenging at first glance, but remember that every U9 player who was born in August through December in the entire country will be going through the same change. The technical staff will help ease the transitions for all players.

The transition we will see in 2026 will be nothing like this disaster

[Anonymous]

They think these structural changes will improve youth soccer and therefore eventually the NT, which won’t happen.

The biggest issues in US soccer are:

1. Pay to play
2. Focus on physical attributes (size, strength, speed) rather than technical or tactical skills
3. A culture that emphasizes “winning” above all else

There are other problems as well, but the above 3 kill the development of the sport in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They think these structural changes will improve youth soccer and therefore eventually the NT, which won’t happen.

The biggest issues in US soccer are:

1. Pay to play
2. Focus on physical attributes (size, strength, speed) rather than technical or tactical skills
3. A culture that emphasizes “winning” above all else

There are other problems as well, but the above 3 kill the development of the sport in the US.

The US womens team has been very successful with this system - and is in fact is #1 in the World!

https://inside.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/women

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They think these structural changes will improve youth soccer and therefore eventually the NT, which won’t happen.

The biggest issues in US soccer are:

1. Pay to play
2. Focus on physical attributes (size, strength, speed) rather than technical or tactical skills
3. A culture that emphasizes “winning” above all else

There are other problems as well, but the above 3 kill the development of the sport in the US.

The US womens team has been very successful with this system - and is in fact is #1 in the World!

https://inside.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/women

wrong. the women have been successful because they have opportunities and access to play for many years and structure in the women's game. only recently have more than a few other nations caught up. it takes time. 99% of the women's play in other nations is trash

[Anonymous]

No actual plan is released two weeks after the US soccer meeting!

We can't count on rumors to plan our tryout!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No actual plan is released two weeks after the US soccer meeting!

We can't count on rumors to plan our tryout!

I get the impression there are many people involved in the process who are intentionally slow-rolling out the change, e.g. US Soccer, just to be a pain in the butt. They don't really have a strong enough reason to stop it, but they aren't happy about it. So they claim the transition takes time and drag it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No actual plan is released two weeks after the US soccer meeting!

We can't count on rumors to plan our tryout!

It's not rumors. US Club soccer had an official release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No actual plan is released two weeks after the US soccer meeting!

We can't count on rumors to plan our tryout!

It's not rumors. US Club soccer had an official release.

I am waiting for GA and MLSN. They need to state if they stay with BY or switch to SY!

This is frustrating. I understand it can be complex, but at least tell us the direction you are going, so we can prepare. They definitely do NOT put player first, but protect their own business at all costs!.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No actual plan is released two weeks after the US soccer meeting!

We can't count on rumors to plan our tryout!

It's not rumors. US Club soccer had an official release.

I am waiting for GA and MLSN. They need to state if they stay with BY or switch to SY!

This is frustrating. I understand it can be complex, but at least tell us the direction you are going, so we can prepare. They definitely do NOT put player first, but protect their own business at all costs!.

I am shocked by the lack of anything from MLSN or GA. Makes me think they are undecided....