ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’ve come a long way.

Started with SY rumors ECNL was changing the age groups to 8/1. BY people saying that’s stupid they can’t do it without US soccer. To US soccer allowing leagues to choose and they’ve chosen 9/1.
To now BY people saying rumor is MLSN/GA staying BY and SY people saying you’re stupid they wouldn’t do that.

How the turn tables have turned

I do think it'll be interesting! MLS/GA clubs all play USYS with their littles. They could of course stay with birth year teams and play USYS anyway, nothing stopping them from doing they don't they will have a very weird problem at the U13 transition year.

And now you add in all the new MLSN2 clubs (where MLSN2 is their top level) who will have 90% of their teams in SY, who will have their 2nd teams in SY, and who will want to have their top teams compete in college showcases and tournaments (which will all be SY) and claim they will be BY? It is insane and not going to happen. At a minimum, MLSN2 will be SY. There is not a chance it goes BY.

MLSN2 will be BY. There is an article out there that said that, and that one of the primary reasons for MLS to do N2 was so that their feeder leagues WOULD be BY.

Cool! Im sure you can post the link to that article!

There is not a chance MLS2 stays BY for 26/27. I mean like 0% lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’ve come a long way.

Started with SY rumors ECNL was changing the age groups to 8/1. BY people saying that’s stupid they can’t do it without US soccer. To US soccer allowing leagues to choose and they’ve chosen 9/1.
To now BY people saying rumor is MLSN/GA staying BY and SY people saying you’re stupid they wouldn’t do that.

How the turn tables have turned

I do think it'll be interesting! MLS/GA clubs all play USYS with their littles. They could of course stay with birth year teams and play USYS anyway, nothing stopping them from doing they don't they will have a very weird problem at the U13 transition year.

And now you add in all the new MLSN2 clubs (where MLSN2 is their top level) who will have 90% of their teams in SY, who will have their 2nd teams in SY, and who will want to have their top teams compete in college showcases and tournaments (which will all be SY) and claim they will be BY? It is insane and not going to happen. At a minimum, MLSN2 will be SY. There is not a chance it goes BY.

MLSN2 will be BY. There is an article out there that said that, and that one of the primary reasons for MLS to do N2 was so that their feeder leagues WOULD be BY.

Cool! Im sure you can post the link to that article!

There is not a chance MLS2 stays BY for 26/27. I mean like 0% lol.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't MLSN or GA just come out and say, 'hey, we're staying BY for eternity'?

It makes 0 sense to sit quietly like this unless they are planning some sort of change. Maybe they don't go full SY but surely something is up.

Why wouldn't they announce they're considering a switch to SY, don't know yet, or are switching to SY? Seems like they did announce they're staying BY. And they really don't have to announce anything if they're already on BY and don't plan on changing that.

Its really not that shocking. They've always been advocates for BY. They care about aligning with higher competition like academies and international pro pathways, not aligning with Cal North D teams.

Align with f**king what? Been with MLSN for 2 years, never play against any meaningful International team, except paying 5K to go to Mic cup.

The only bright spot in MLSN is my trapped player has meaningful training & games during HS soccer break, unlike his former ECNL teammates, who had almost nothing for 4 months.

Align with feeding the best players into academies on BY. Aligning with international competition and tournaments with international teams. Their mission is literally to be a pro development pathway. While not every MLSN team and player gets these opportunities, the best players do.

The best players (U.S. or otherwise) play for European club academies - not MLS.

[Anonymous]

I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

GA is/has asked their member clubs for feedback on possible change. Getting that info, reviewing it, and then coming up with their plan takes a little time. Announcement in May.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

This is the thing - it would be better for kids to have two different systems. SY reduces RAE for the late year kids, BY is where the summer kids play. However, clubs that have GA and ECNL or just that have US Club, etc. feeder programs, that becomes a logistical nightmare to manage SY for some, BY for others (and the change for some at U13). For my kids (one Dec, two July) I would love it if there were two different age registration systems but it seems very difficult to maintain BY given above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

This is the thing - it would be better for kids to have two different systems. SY reduces RAE for the late year kids, BY is where the summer kids play. However, clubs that have GA and ECNL or just that have US Club, etc. feeder programs, that becomes a logistical nightmare to manage SY for some, BY for others (and the change for some at U13). For my kids (one Dec, two July) I would love it if there were two different age registration systems but it seems very difficult to maintain BY given above.

With the addition of MLSN2, and the expansion of all of these clubs, they almost have to move to SY. I'm sure the academies don't want the hassle, but every other (i.e., 90% of them) MLSN/2 club will want and need SY to stay competitive, afloat and organized. If you have ever worked directly behind the scenes at one of these MLS2 or MLSN clubs, you already know that the vast majority do not have the capacity to try and straddle both systems and stay competitive and winning.

If MLSN decides, "hey screw it, we don't care about 90% of our customers" and stays BY I would be shocked. They have worked their way into a position where they can see the light at the end of the tunnel for completely taking US Club out of the picture. Why take your foot off the gas now and give them a shot at taking some of these clubs back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

This is the thing - it would be better for kids to have two different systems. SY reduces RAE for the late year kids, BY is where the summer kids play. However, clubs that have GA and ECNL or just that have US Club, etc. feeder programs, that becomes a logistical nightmare to manage SY for some, BY for others (and the change for some at U13). For my kids (one Dec, two July) I would love it if there were two different age registration systems but it seems very difficult to maintain BY given above.

You are right, it probably would be best to have two different systems. One that favors Jan-August and one that favors sept-dec. You could also argue that a SY system that places most kids correctly based on grad year is preferred by college coaches. MLSnext does not want that though. They want to continue to be the one and only top league. Unless MLSnext can figure out how to create a BY feeder system at the youth ages or convinces enough youth leagues to stay BY, they will end up SY. Im sure they don’t want to change and are going through the process now of exploring their options. US Soccer punting the decision making to the leagues really put them in a tough spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Yeah, there is 0 competitive advantage for staying BY. It would be easier/convenient to stay BY. So I'm sure there are those behind the scenes who would prefer to just ignore the change but smarter heads will prevail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Yeah, there is 0 competitive advantage for staying BY. It would be easier/convenient to stay BY. So I'm sure there are those behind the scenes who would prefer to just ignore the change but smarter heads will prevail.

Club owners will not please BY crowd to stay in BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Well, as every Sept-Q4 players and clubs look to use the upcoming switch to their advantage, there WILL be people not happy with the results who in theory might prefer a BY league instead. It's not that complicated -- unless you're saying all the hype around SeptQ1 players switching is just hype.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Well, as every Sept-Q4 players and clubs look to use the upcoming switch to their advantage, there WILL be people not happy with the results who in theory might prefer a BY league instead. It's not that complicated -- unless you're saying all the hype around SeptQ1 players switching is just hype.

For the switch, we can call it as "wash" at best, but I doubt it. The issue is how many players want to switch from SY to BY when entering U-13. That is a big uncertainty. Unless the league is so confident it will not only not lose players, but can also increase players, then it makes sense to stay in BY.

I do not see any monetary incentive for p2p MLSN to stay in BY except to make BY crowds happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Well, as every Sept-Q4 players and clubs look to use the upcoming switch to their advantage, there WILL be people not happy with the results who in theory might prefer a BY league instead. It's not that complicated -- unless you're saying all the hype around SeptQ1 players switching is just hype.

For the switch, we can call it as "wash" at best, but I doubt it. The issue is how many players want to switch from SY to BY when entering U-13. That is a big uncertainty. Unless the league is so confident it will not only not lose players, but can also increase players, then it makes sense to stay in BY.

I do not see any monetary incentive for p2p MLSN to stay in BY except to make BY crowds happy.

This is our situation. Q4 2013G. switching clubs. can't commit until we know GA is going SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they've (MLSN and GA) not announced because they haven't decided. They'd prefer to stay BY, which could provide a competitive advantage BUT are trying to figure out if it'll be worth the hassle and whether ultimately it'll be hurtful/helpful in the end.

“Competitive advantage” what do you mean?

Well, as every Sept-Q4 players and clubs look to use the upcoming switch to their advantage, there WILL be people not happy with the results who in theory might prefer a BY league instead. It's not that complicated -- unless you're saying all the hype around SeptQ1 players switching is just hype.

For the switch, we can call it as "wash" at best, but I doubt it. The issue is how many players want to switch from SY to BY when entering U-13. That is a big uncertainty. Unless the league is so confident it will not only not lose players, but can also increase players, then it makes sense to stay in BY.

I do not see any monetary incentive for p2p MLSN to stay in BY except to make BY crowds happy.

I think the thinking is if they stay small enough, they could cater to that pathway, standing out vs. everything else while always still aligning internationally. The problem, tho, is more and more of their clubs want to be able to offer HS. That's why they're waivering and probably will ultimately go SY.