ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

At my club Q1/Q2 players populate Academy 1s (my son is October, the youngest and the exception).

However at Academy 2s you can find lots of Q3/Q4.

A coincidence? No, just the RAE (Relative Age Effect).

Q3/Q4 aren’t worse technical/tactical players than Q1/Q2, only they are smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my club Q1/Q2 players populate Academy 1s (my son is October, the youngest and the exception).

However at Academy 2s you can find lots of Q3/Q4.

A coincidence? No, just the RAE (Relative Age Effect).

Q3/Q4 aren’t worse technical/tactical players than Q1/Q2, only they are smaller.

Same.

[Anonymous]

If you want to findout what GA is doing here is the commissioners email.

[e-mail]

Just ask.

[Anonymous]

patricia.hughes@
girlsacademyleague.com

[Anonymous]

It makes sense for Ga to just add biobanding allowing them to be flexible with their rosters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to findout what GA is doing here is the commissioners email.

[e-mail]

Just ask.

What did she tell you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It makes sense for Ga to just add biobanding allowing them to be flexible with their rosters.

GA will go to SY. It has no leverage to stay in BY. No GA club owners are stupid to give ECNl the edge.

GA has to announce its decision along with MLSN because of the "partnership." I would give p2p MLSN 20% to stay in BY as they have a slight advantage compared with ECNL boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes sense for Ga to just add biobanding allowing them to be flexible with their rosters.

GA will go to SY. It has no leverage to stay in BY. No GA club owners are stupid to give ECNl the edge.

GA has to announce its decision along with MLSN because of the "partnership." I would give p2p MLSN 20% to stay in BY as they have a slight advantage compared with ECNL boys.

And more importantly, GA girls play high school. MLS next plays a full year schedule and doesn’t allow high school soccer so they have less conflicts but that’s not how GA works. Being the only league still trapping kids would be weird…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Agree…a few weeks ago BY parents were name calling at the suggestion that the change was coming…even referring to kids as “bottom feeders.” Now that the change is happening the BY crowd is clutching their pearls.

Well, I wrote it. I’m not a BY proponent. And I think on the bias, the SY side has been considerably more toxic.

This whole exchange epitomizes it. Just because I post a view, some jerkoff calls it a “BY” post. How much of what YOU see as “BY posts” are you just assuming someone is BY because you didn’t like what they said…justifying further toxicity from the SY crowd.

It’s really stupid in the extreme. And it’s fairly transparent too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes sense for Ga to just add biobanding allowing them to be flexible with their rosters.

GA will go to SY. It has no leverage to stay in BY. No GA club owners are stupid to give ECNl the edge.

GA has to announce its decision along with MLSN because of the "partnership." I would give p2p MLSN 20% to stay in BY as they have a slight advantage compared with ECNL boys.

🤦🏻‍♀️ ECNL already has the edge on the girls side. Age cutoff isn’t “an edge.”

Strategically, if GA wants to let ECNL keep its edge, it would follow suit and go SY. If it wants to have a chance to disrupt ECNL’s edge, it would stay put. This isn’t hard to noodle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Agree…a few weeks ago BY parents were name calling at the suggestion that the change was coming…even referring to kids as “bottom feeders.” Now that the change is happening the BY crowd is clutching their pearls.

Well, I wrote it. I’m not a BY proponent. And I think on the bias, the SY side has been considerably more toxic.

This whole exchange epitomizes it. Just because I post a view, some jerkoff calls it a “BY” post. How much of what YOU see as “BY posts” are you just assuming someone is BY because you didn’t like what they said…justifying further toxicity from the SY crowd.

It’s really stupid in the extreme. And it’s fairly transparent too.

Sure…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It makes sense for Ga to just add biobanding allowing them to be flexible with their rosters.

GA will go to SY. It has no leverage to stay in BY. No GA club owners are stupid to give ECNl the edge.

GA has to announce its decision along with MLSN because of the "partnership." I would give p2p MLSN 20% to stay in BY as they have a slight advantage compared with ECNL boys.

🤦🏻‍♀️ ECNL already has the edge on the girls side. Age cutoff isn’t “an edge.”

Strategically, if GA wants to let ECNL keep its edge, it would follow suit and go SY. If it wants to have a chance to disrupt ECNL’s edge, it would stay put. This isn’t hard to noodle.

Allowing players to play high school soccer and still trap players is a stupid PR. GA 100% will go to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Agree…a few weeks ago BY parents were name calling at the suggestion that the change was coming…even referring to kids as “bottom feeders.” Now that the change is happening the BY crowd is clutching their pearls.

Well, I wrote it. I’m not a BY proponent. And I think on the bias, the SY side has been considerably more toxic.

This whole exchange epitomizes it. Just because I post a view, some jerkoff calls it a “BY” post. How much of what YOU see as “BY posts” are you just assuming someone is BY because you didn’t like what they said…justifying further toxicity from the SY crowd.

It’s really stupid in the extreme. And it’s fairly transparent too.

Sure…

What you don’t believe the SY guy is here to white knight for the BY crowd? It’s soooo transparent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this thread may get to 1000 as parents come here to complain that either:

1) My kid got demoted because of a SeptQ4 player

2) My kid didn't get promoted even though they're SeptQ4 -- what gives?

And then there'll be ...

Nothing changed for my kid and what's the big deal?

This thread will get to a 1000 within days after the USCS/USYS/AYSO joint announcement on "transitional rules". Assuming we've not got there already.

Hope the BY advocates can survive the ordeal (probably not).

I'm sure they will do their part to make this transition as toxic as possible lol.

Their time has come and gone, now they have to transition power to the opposition. I’m sure they will go out kicking and screaming.

Love the ironic projection of BY as toxic 🤣

I am a SY advocate, and still am totally blown away by how utterly insane many of the other on the SY side are. The BY people were not even remotely toxic compared to you all.

Something tells me this was actually written by a BY advocate pretending otherwise and trying to rewrite the history of this thread, or someone who just joined the conversation within the last 10/800 pages. There's about 500 pages of BY people telling everyone to stop complaining about trapped player issues and their desire to play with friends, and that their kids just suck at soccer. The actual issues being addressed were explained over and over and over, but it eventually devolved into just a place for bitter BY people to trash talk younger kids. If you newly visited the thread for the aftermath of the announcements and SY advocates gloating, I can see how maybe you think they are toxic too though.

Agree…a few weeks ago BY parents were name calling at the suggestion that the change was coming…even referring to kids as “bottom feeders.” Now that the change is happening the BY crowd is clutching their pearls.

Well, I wrote it. I’m not a BY proponent. And I think on the bias, the SY side has been considerably more toxic.

This whole exchange epitomizes it. Just because I post a view, some jerkoff calls it a “BY” post. How much of what YOU see as “BY posts” are you just assuming someone is BY because you didn’t like what they said…justifying further toxicity from the SY crowd.

It’s really stupid in the extreme. And it’s fairly transparent too.

Sure…

What you don’t believe the SY guy is here to white knight for the BY crowd? It’s soooo transparent

Not the OP, but there also are parents who have kids who are in SeptQ4 and Q1/Q2/Jul-Aug and see both all the advantages/disadvantages very clearly, so they're not looking to be a jerk to either side. (And you don't have to have kids in both to have this view -- but it certainly gives a good perspective).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to findout what GA is doing here is the commissioners email.

[e-mail]

Just ask.

What did she tell you?

I didn’t ask because I’m a coward.