ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

[Anonymous]

Why is MLS NEXT adding Quality of Play rankings specifically to U13 and U14?
There are just over 5,600 U13 and U14 players registered in MLS NEXT, more than 1/3 of the organization’s 16,000 players across the U.S. and Canada. They are the two most malleable age groups.

Robles referenced the book, "Outliers," in which author Malcom Gladwell tracked how American hockey players born in the first three months of the year were more likely to go pro.

They had been bigger and stronger when they were younger, and thus placed into a top-level national pipeline because they were fortunate enough to be born in January, February or March.

"If you're born in January, as opposed to someone that's born in December in the same year, it’s 10% of muscle development,” Robles said. “You're not even sure which direction that's going. We have to find ways to be able to mitigate that."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

You’re insane to care enough to talk like that. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with an opinion.
MLSN can switch to SY if they want I’ve always heard they were strongly against it. Idk how they’ll $60k a year with all their roasters spots still full?

There’s too many boys and families that are dying for an MLSN spot what age group they go with is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

MLSN and GA are going to start getting involved with more international competitions so it would make sense for them to stay BY for their majority and can always bioband players down for local competitions if needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

You’re insane to care enough to talk like that. Sorry if I hurt your feelings with an opinion.
MLSN can switch to SY if they want I’ve always heard they were strongly against it. Idk how they’ll $60k a year with all their roasters spots still full?

There’s too many boys and families that are dying for an MLSN spot what age group they go with is irrelevant.

You are definitely ignorant. It is not they can fill the roster. On the contrary, they can not take any new players as the level is really high for non MLS/ECNL players. We have new players pop out now for every practice, and they disappear after 1 or 2 practices. The level is very high that we do not even invite B-team (MLS2) players to practice. We have literally borrow younger MLS players to help in the game. I can not even imagine losing those Q4 players in this team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

MLSN and GA are going to start getting involved with more international competitions so it would make sense for them to stay BY for their majority and can always bioband players down for local competitions if needed.

This is your wishful thinking, right?

[Anonymous]

GA has not announced anything yet and waiting until first of May

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GA has not announced anything yet and waiting until first of May

Bet GA will announce they are staying birth year until the end of time. Because it's better and it showcases Q1 players, who are naturally better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA has not announced anything yet and waiting until first of May

Bet GA will announce they are staying birth year until the end of time. Because it's better and it showcases Q1 players, who are naturally better.

Staying in BY is good for your Q1 daughter but a suicide to GA business. They are not stupid. We can bet on it.

[Anonymous]

Given their alliance, I think its pretty certain GA and MLSN will have the same age grouping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I don't know the birthdays of every kid but from what I have seen at our very big club, there are very few Q4s on any NL team (or at least the two my kids play on). "

I think we are agreeing on this point. There aren't that many Q4s on any of the NL teams. Which is why you can GENERALLY (not absolutely) say at the club level if you are a Q4 NL player you will LIKELY easily have a spot on the younger NL team in 2026. Lets say the older team has 4 players that are moving down, the team below has 3 that are moving down. It's not 1:1 but no one is getting cut because of it. There are roster size changes moving from 7V7, 9V9, 11V11. In 2026 we'll lose 3, gain 4, and because of the increase in roster size, we'll still have spots open. I can gurantee you there is not going to be this crazy mass replacement of NL teams with RL players. At the PRE-ECNL level, I have no doubt that there will be 1-3 Q4 RL players that move to the NL team the age group below, they are the same players that would would make their current age NL team as the roster size expands, and would need to be the Top players on their current RL team. 2nd team players who are talented and skilled always move up to the first team as the roster size increases and sometimes based on talent beating out the bottom level of current team. It's crazy to think that all of the sudden coaches of existing NL teams who are beating the older RL teams will be making any major changes.

Are people thinking the RL player that lacked the skill and IQ to be NL in '25 is all of a sudden going to be Pulisic or Wambach in '26 because of age cutoff shift?

Are people thinking that the Q1 or Q2 MLSN or ECNL player the lacked the skill and IQ but was bigger and faster because of age is all of a sudden going to be not as good relative to the new older kids because of the age cutoff shift? Um, yes. And somebody has to replace them.

Q4 players will have to worry about teams and coaches stuck in player lock though so switching teams could be massive next year.

MLSN is BY

They will lose players by staying BY alone. Club owners, unlike you, are not stupid.

They will not lose players. They have biobanding they do not follow the current strict BY system. They can literally put a January 2011 on a 2012 team if they wanted. They can stay By and still bioband Sept-Dec kids down if they want to.

As long as they have a high level of play and continue to send kids to college at high rates people will want their kids in the league.

What a stupid assumption. Do you know how many MLSN teams actually use biobanding? Very very few, your stupid ass. There is no single advantage to staying in BY alone for those p2p MLSN. It will switch to SY, unless the club owners are OK to lose $60K a year, keep 2 registrations among MLS/MLS2, and have headaches playing outside tournaments.

MLSN and GA are going to start getting involved with more international competitions so it would make sense for them to stay BY for their majority and can always bioband players down for local competitions if needed.

This is your wishful thinking, right?

The BY crowd is spiraling

[Anonymous]

Staying in BY alone is a risky business decision for p2p MLSN club owners. I know BY parents pray for MLSN to stay in BY. But those owners are working for more revenue, not your BY kids.

MLS Academy can stay either BY or SY, since they are free. Their business model is to sign talented young players in their pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given their alliance, I think its pretty certain GA and MLSN will have the same age grouping.

Which is what?