ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

I guess if some ecnl/ecrl leagues are half year and start in the spring, they could follow. It seems unlikely for some ecnl/rl clubs to make the change and some not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SoCal soccer forum says that CalSouth doesn’t have any year long leagues so changing to SY Spring 26 is easy for them. ECNL and ECRL are year long leagues, so they most likely won’t follow CalSouth

Not that it matters, but aren't ECNL and RL half year leagues from U15 on? So the ECRL Virginia division teams have to be in a side leagues for the spring to get in some games and could change to SY for the spring if the side league allow it.

Not really. Ecnl runs August-July with different areas of the country breaking for high school soccer at different times. Playoffs in June and July are based on the August-May regular season schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SoCal soccer forum says that CalSouth doesn’t have any year long leagues so changing to SY Spring 26 is easy for them. ECNL and ECRL are year long leagues, so they most likely won’t follow CalSouth

Just so I am following. We couldn't make the change for Fall 25 because California already held tryouts. But they aren't for year long teams?

Definitely the most messed up part of the decision making process

[Anonymous]

Thanks for nothing California

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SoCal soccer forum says that CalSouth doesn’t have any year long leagues so changing to SY Spring 26 is easy for them. ECNL and ECRL are year long leagues, so they most likely won’t follow CalSouth

Not that it matters, but aren't ECNL and RL half year leagues from U15 on? So the ECRL Virginia division teams have to be in a side leagues for the spring to get in some games and could change to SY for the spring if the side league allow it.

Not really. Ecnl runs August-July with different areas of the country breaking for high school soccer at different times. Playoffs in June and July are based on the August-May regular season schedule.

100% truth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

MLN2 teams are the current EA teams that play HS Soccer. I do not believe they will not allow HS Soccer. If they are so stupid as to remove it, my kid will immediately leave for the RL team. I think the club will set it straight before the older tryout next month here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

MLN2 teams are the current EA teams that play HS Soccer. I do not believe they will not allow HS Soccer. If they are so stupid as to remove it, my kid will immediately leave for the RL team. I think the club will set it straight before the older tryout next month here.

What I mean is MLS2 will allow HS soccer, and then trap players will be a big issue. So I expect them to transit to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

"sanction" just means pay us a lot of money to do nothing...like the UN. leagues should break off and do their own thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

MLN2 teams are the current EA teams that play HS Soccer. I do not believe they will not allow HS Soccer. If they are so stupid as to remove it, my kid will immediately leave for the RL team. I think the club will set it straight before the older tryout next month here.

What I mean is MLS2 will allow HS soccer, and then trap players will be a big issue. So I expect them to transit to SY.

Bingo. Already announced they will play high school soccer. They count field a team if they plan on offering BY and continues the trapped play thing for 5 months of players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US Club just finished their bi-annual leadership meeting. From their Facebook post today: At times, it felt like an accelerated think tank with discussions and presentations about: safeguarding, coach education, state cups, the NPL-ECNL RL-ECNL pipeline, NPL member league standards, registration system enhancements and more.
Maybe some transitional info soon?

My assessment of the situation, based on the statements and rumors along the way, and how we got here...

USSF and MLS really did not want to switch away from BY. USCS, USYS, and AYSO really wanted to switch to SY. Clubs and other leagues were relatively indifferent, or at least had a variety of opinions. The case to switch back to SY, for the vast majority of youth soccer not playing for YNT or pre-pro, was too compelling for USSF to just ignore. Demanding everyone stay BY would have risked a divorce between most youth soccer and USSF. In the face of this, USSF could only serve its own, and MLS, interests by slowing it down and leaving open the choice. They nominally threw California under the bus as being "not ready," but the real reason was to give MLS time to make some moves.

MLS has recognized the benefit of going SY for the youngest ages, but is trying to figure out if it can stay BY in MLSN (especially in academies) without creating too many problems with pre-MLSN and B teams. They're currently exploring partnerships, solidifying their second tier, and trying to get their position solidified before fully deciding how all the parts will fit together.

USCS, USYS, and AYSO have made it clear they will switch in 26. They are stuck in a holding pattern until then, waiting on MLS to make its moves. To act sooner would put them at odds with USSF even after USSF claims to have given them what they want. They would look ungrateful, despite USSF having done its best to sabotage the transition, and having a history of putting their interests as low priority. USSF did just enough to keep them from walking away.

GA is stuck in the middle, looking for any competitive edge it can gain from MLS and USSF. If they aren't offered enough assistance, they will have no choice but to eventually follow the rest of girls youth soccer and go SY. They most likely don't care either way, but they are looking for an opportunity to gain on ECNL if it presents itself. Expect them to stay quiet until they get offered something big to stay BY or we get close enough to 26-27 tryouts that they have to give notice of a switch.

So we're pretty much stuck with no major changes until 26-27 other than whatever MLS does to improve its position. ECNL can only change things before then in a tit-for-tat manner with anything MLS does. Clubs can do more internally to transition, but some will and some won't. ECNL doesn't want to micromanage its clubs. They may give some recommendations for clubs, but no meaty rule changes. It's frustrating for the majority of youth players and their parents to be in limbo, but just like the change to BY it's all a result of who holds the power at USSF. They care a lot more about their business than the experience of millions of kids playing crappy soccer. USSF is just not a force for good in the youth soccer landscape.

Pretty solid take.

Divorce wasn’t a thing, USSF is THE national body sanction through FIFA. Any off shoot non sanctioned body would be hot garbage.

MLSNext is not trying to go SY, and if anything MLSN2 will likely also stay BY. That benefits both MLSN and larger soccer ecosystem.

MLN2 teams are the current EA teams that play HS Soccer. I do not believe they will not allow HS Soccer. If they are so stupid as to remove it, my kid will immediately leave for the RL team. I think the club will set it straight before the older tryout next month here.

What I mean is MLS2 will allow HS soccer, and then trap players will be a big issue. So I expect them to transit to SY.

Bingo. Already announced they will play high school soccer. They count field a team if they plan on offering BY and continues the trapped play thing for 5 months of players.

If that is the case, there is no game during HS break, so EA team will lose a lot of players to RL in U15. Not sure if those players will ever come back.

[Anonymous]

Logistically it’s going to be very hard for mlsnext to stay BY on their own. All the u8-u12 leagues will be SY. That would mean sept-December birthdays from their own club would need to skip u12 to change from a SY team to a BY team and any sept-December birthdays coming from the outside will need to skip an age group. It’s making the barrier to entry of a mlsnext team too high for 4 months of birthdays which means fewer kids and less $$$. Even in mlsnext, 99% of kids are going to college. There’s no benefit to staying BY that outweighs that logistical nightmare.

I think mlsnext will be SY by 26/27 and mlsnext academies will be SY through u16. England academies have the same 9/1 cutoff. U18 will stay the same as their age classification is already unique.

Makes too much sense to do it any other way… which also means that US soccer may do the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Haha… good one. Just check the pipeline and see “Cui Bono”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SoCal soccer forum says that CalSouth doesn’t have any year long leagues so changing to SY Spring 26 is easy for them. ECNL and ECRL are year long leagues, so they most likely won’t follow CalSouth

Not that it matters, but aren't ECNL and RL half year leagues from U15 on? So the ECRL Virginia division teams have to be in a side leagues for the spring to get in some games and could change to SY for the spring if the side league allow it.

Not really. Ecnl runs August-July with different areas of the country breaking for high school soccer at different times. Playoffs in June and July are based on the August-May regular season schedule.

ECRL Virginia league north boys, last scheduled game shown on web was Oct 30, 2024 for U15, 16, 17.and 19 with no mention of anything else. Girls went a few weeks later, but also no games in 2025. Of course they could fit in the playoffs in May/June after a spring season at another league.

[Anonymous]

Whatever cutoff of SY or BY is used, MLSN and MLSN2 will have the same cutoff of 1/1 or 9/1. At our club our 2nd teams just switched to MLSN2 from ECNL and the big selling points were ease of transition of players between teams and the MLSN2 teams playing in the same showcases as MLSN. There is simply no scenario if which MLSN2 teams will be forced to play up an age division in showcases and have no Jan to Aug birthdays while MLSN P2P and Academies will.