ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLSN/2 staying BY.

BY crowds work hard on mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal south the largest USYS governed league. Has an online webinar tonight at 7pm. Will have a discussion about age change and a Q/A.

They are starting to form SY teams for spring 26.

Strangely Cal North says it's keeping BY until Fall 2026. https://www.calnorth.org/news/important-update-cal-north-shifts-to-seasonal-year-age-groups-in-2026-2027

It's a divided state.

The RAE problem has been solved!

6. Will late developers benefit from this change?
Yes! Players with later birthdates in the year will have a more even playing field by competing with their classmates, reducing the age gap disparities seen under the calendar year system.

[Anonymous]

If MLSN2 stays BY, won't it just end up being that Jan-Aug play there and Sept/Q4 play ECNL assuming they both have good local teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MLSN2 stays BY, won't it just end up being that Jan-Aug play there and Sept/Q4 play ECNL assuming they both have good local teams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MLSN2 stays BY, won't it just end up being that Jan-Aug play there and Sept/Q4 play ECNL assuming they both have good local teams?

How are they going to play tournaments? The club owners will not stay in BY just to please BY crowds. It is a business and the trend is SY.

BY crowds can work hard on mental gymnastics until the shoes drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN/2 staying BY.

BY crowds work hard on mental gymnastics.

Beginning with the 2026-2027 soccer season, Cal North will be transitioning to a School Year age grouping method for all programs—

with the exception of our Olympic Development Program (ODP) and National Platforms (e.g., MLS Next Tier 2)

It literally says right in here? Why say with exception? My kids Dec born idc either way. Just pointing out what is says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mark your calendars! This change will go into effect August 1, 2026, for the 2026-2027 season. Clubs should prepare for this transition early to ensure a smooth registration process.

I think it's well established ECNL tryouts that are happening NOW-May, that there is 0 transition plan and will be BY teams. At the upcoming cycle and it's impossible to move to SY early and would actual hurt clubs and players. NL will only be formed on BY because you can't compete with older kids on the team and NL families dont want play on a worse team in a worse league for a year when no one else is.

Current NL players aren't going to be on ANY SY team in 2025, so if you try to make the second team SY you would end up playing with a pool of younger RL and older RL teams together. But why would that be helpful to the older Q4 RL players to play SY with the younger RL Jan-Aug players?

It does not benefit a NL coach this cycle to pick up a Q4 player, bc they would just lose them next season. Why would I do that as a coach unless they were really good and could help my team this season, all things equal, I'll pick the girl who will be on my roster next year too. I'm not saying NL coaches are dropping q4's to RL this year, but I would only pickup someone who would potentially stay on my roster in 2026...

This goes back to the fact that this change is not great news for q4s. The delay really hurt them when they may have moved up this cycle, now they may not get a look until 2026 on the younger NL team. The good news is the future is bright for Q4's of the future: 2017s or 2018s!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The clubs who start putting these teams together sooner rather than later will have a big advantage on other clubs. "

genuine question, but like what clubs are you talking about. Tryouts are in 2 weeks and no club around here is doing what you are saying. There aren't just endless good clubs in a town? There are 2 good clubs where we live. If you are on the 2nd Team, you can't just switch clubs and make the 1st team at the other good club. And both good clubs are staying BY. So I think you are saying switch to a 3rd rouge club that is moving to SY early for 2025? the 2 good clubs would still crush this rouge club with their younger BY team. I'm just confused as to what mass change you think is possible in 2 weeks?

I don’t know about the person you are quoting but I don’t think they meant smart clubs would be out there in the open planning SY rosters. But there is no way any half decent club is not looking at the birthdate breakdowns of their current teams and the birthdates of any new tryout attendees and making some cold calculations now while tryouts are going on.

They certainly won’t be doing much SY stuff out in the open though, that will start in the spring.

I get the logic here. But it only works on the “happy path.”

Realistic Path:

Said club moves first, but can’t really load up any one team with sept-dec because not everyone moves, and talent sticks together.

So said club has a crappy 26/26 season, and becomes less attractive to talent elsewhere, and less fun for kids (and parents), resulting in loss of some of the talent it tried to stock up on. Vicious cycle for said club. Meanwhile the winner clubs keep on winning and attracting talent REGARDLESS of the age cutoff / timeline / roster mix.

Yes- when you look at how you would actually implement this early at an established ECNL club, it falls apart because it has to work across every age group. A major call out would be the 2014 PreECNL NL Team who will be starting actual ECNL NL in 2026. According to the "start now in 2025" plan, you would have a team of 2013’s Sept-Dec combine with the 2014’s. The 2014s would have to play up in the 2013 RL League since they have 2013’s on their roster. They would be worse off. The Sept-Dec 2013’s who are currently on the NL team would play in a lesser league --2013 RL in 2025 instead of the 2013 NL (worse for them).

Where we live, the u-12 Pre-ENCL NL Team (which will be the 2014’s in 2025) plays in a badass 11 v 11 league the year before actual ECNL starts. They play against all the top ECNL clubs in the the state, there’s a north and south division. It’s 12 of the states best preECNL teams. The competition is really good and gets you ready for ECNL. They couldn’t play in this league with 2013s on their roster, they would have to play in the 2013 RL league and be LESS Prepared to move to ECNL in 2026. They would be worse off long term because of it. So both the 2013 Sept-Dec players + the 2014 Jan-Aug players on the Top team would suffer.

It would only work at the club level if you did it across every team NL + RL. If the top team is still going to play BY, you can’t successfully create the second team as a SY team and have it be competitive, the older portion of that team will always be worse off bc they would be combining with the younger second team. It would be good for the younger RL players, but the older RL players on the team would not be as strong as just staying on the current BY RL team.

Again - Maybe works for a club that is not an established ECNL NL club where there is a strong First Team at every level. These clubs will have to move everyone at once and it will only hurt them to move to BY early.

Sure the RL players may consider switching to club that is moving to SY next season but they will be switching to a worse club, won’t be seen in the current clubs age group pool for 2026 and then when the change happens be in a worse spot. Tryouts here are 2 weeks away and the ECNL clubs are forming teams on BY. This is where the strongest players play. Leaving the club to go to a non ECNL club moving to SY, not only would the younger BY ECNL team beat this SY club, it would hurt your chances of coming back in 2026 and making the NL team, which will continue to dominate.

Again - there is no advantage to moving to SY early for an ECNL club and logistically impossible unless done at every age level. And we would all know that was happening by now in 2025, and it’s not. There is not a mass change of clubs happening at ECNL tryouts this year.

And you’ve just explained why it’s 26/27 not 25/26…

[Anonymous]

No news. Thanks cal north.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN/2 staying BY.

BY crowds work hard on mental gymnastics.

Beginning with the 2026-2027 soccer season, Cal North will be transitioning to a School Year age grouping method for all programs—

with the exception of our Olympic Development Program (ODP) and National Platforms (e.g., MLS Next Tier 2)

It literally says right in here? Why say with exception? My kids Dec born idc either way. Just pointing out what is says.

MLS2 is not a national platform LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN/2 staying BY.

BY crowds work hard on mental gymnastics.

Beginning with the 2026-2027 soccer season, Cal North will be transitioning to a School Year age grouping method for all programs—

with the exception of our Olympic Development Program (ODP) and National Platforms (e.g., MLS Next Tier 2)

It literally says right in here? Why say with exception? My kids Dec born idc either way. Just pointing out what is says.

You conveniently missed the disclaimer
"For National Platforms, including MLS Next Tier 2, Cal North Member Organizations will defer to the National Platform’s governing body to adhere to their required age grouping method."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark your calendars! This change will go into effect August 1, 2026, for the 2026-2027 season. Clubs should prepare for this transition early to ensure a smooth registration process.

I think it's well established ECNL tryouts that are happening NOW-May, that there is 0 transition plan and will be BY teams. At the upcoming cycle and it's impossible to move to SY early and would actual hurt clubs and players. NL will only be formed on BY because you can't compete with older kids on the team and NL families dont want play on a worse team in a worse league for a year when no one else is.

Current NL players aren't going to be on ANY SY team in 2025, so if you try to make the second team SY you would end up playing with a pool of younger RL and older RL teams together. But why would that be helpful to the older Q4 RL players to play SY with the younger RL Jan-Aug players?

It does not benefit a NL coach this cycle to pick up a Q4 player, bc they would just lose them next season. Why would I do that as a coach unless they were really good and could help my team this season, all things equal, I'll pick the girl who will be on my roster next year too. I'm not saying NL coaches are dropping q4's to RL this year, but I would only pickup someone who would potentially stay on my roster in 2026...

This goes back to the fact that this change is not great news for q4s. The delay really hurt them when they may have moved up this cycle, now they may not get a look until 2026 on the younger NL team. The good news is the future is bright for Q4's of the future: 2017s or 2018s!!

Something you are missing about the Q1 and Q4 debate…coaches aren’t picking players, CLUBS are picking players. ECNL directors want to ensure the best players are rostered to help all teams win in 25/26 and 26/27. Keeping a Q4 who will remain NL in the program in 26/27 over a bubble Q1 that will get bumped to RL in 26/27 is a much better strategy for ECNL directors, not individual coaches.

[Anonymous]

💯, unless we are talking about a rec team where the individual coach gathers up as many good players as they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark your calendars! This change will go into effect August 1, 2026, for the 2026-2027 season. Clubs should prepare for this transition early to ensure a smooth registration process.

I think it's well established ECNL tryouts that are happening NOW-May, that there is 0 transition plan and will be BY teams. At the upcoming cycle and it's impossible to move to SY early and would actual hurt clubs and players. NL will only be formed on BY because you can't compete with older kids on the team and NL families dont want play on a worse team in a worse league for a year when no one else is.

Current NL players aren't going to be on ANY SY team in 2025, so if you try to make the second team SY you would end up playing with a pool of younger RL and older RL teams together. But why would that be helpful to the older Q4 RL players to play SY with the younger RL Jan-Aug players?

It does not benefit a NL coach this cycle to pick up a Q4 player, bc they would just lose them next season. Why would I do that as a coach unless they were really good and could help my team this season, all things equal, I'll pick the girl who will be on my roster next year too. I'm not saying NL coaches are dropping q4's to RL this year, but I would only pickup someone who would potentially stay on my roster in 2026...

This goes back to the fact that this change is not great news for q4s. The delay really hurt them when they may have moved up this cycle, now they may not get a look until 2026 on the younger NL team. The good news is the future is bright for Q4's of the future: 2017s or 2018s!!

Something you are missing about the Q1 and Q4 debate…coaches aren’t picking players, CLUBS are picking players. ECNL directors want to ensure the best players are rostered to help all teams win in 25/26 and 26/27. Keeping a Q4 who will remain NL in the program in 26/27 over a bubble Q1 that will get bumped to RL in 26/27 is a much better strategy for ECNL directors, not individual coaches.

thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark your calendars! This change will go into effect August 1, 2026, for the 2026-2027 season. Clubs should prepare for this transition early to ensure a smooth registration process.

I think it's well established ECNL tryouts that are happening NOW-May, that there is 0 transition plan and will be BY teams. At the upcoming cycle and it's impossible to move to SY early and would actual hurt clubs and players. NL will only be formed on BY because you can't compete with older kids on the team and NL families dont want play on a worse team in a worse league for a year when no one else is.

Current NL players aren't going to be on ANY SY team in 2025, so if you try to make the second team SY you would end up playing with a pool of younger RL and older RL teams together. But why would that be helpful to the older Q4 RL players to play SY with the younger RL Jan-Aug players?

It does not benefit a NL coach this cycle to pick up a Q4 player, bc they would just lose them next season. Why would I do that as a coach unless they were really good and could help my team this season, all things equal, I'll pick the girl who will be on my roster next year too. I'm not saying NL coaches are dropping q4's to RL this year, but I would only pickup someone who would potentially stay on my roster in 2026...

This goes back to the fact that this change is not great news for q4s. The delay really hurt them when they may have moved up this cycle, now they may not get a look until 2026 on the younger NL team. The good news is the future is bright for Q4's of the future: 2017s or 2018s!!

Something you are missing about the Q1 and Q4 debate…coaches aren’t picking players, CLUBS are picking players. ECNL directors want to ensure the best players are rostered to help all teams win in 25/26 and 26/27. Keeping a Q4 who will remain NL in the program in 26/27 over a bubble Q1 that will get bumped to RL in 26/27 is a much better strategy for ECNL directors, not individual coaches.

thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious