ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

College sports will be completely different in a few years. I think the d3 model will be the only way it lasts outside of the BCS football schools. Even then it may still get removed for the non-revenue sports. If you have a 2010 or later kid it is probably too late under the old model. Adjust your expectations accordingly. Hope for a good school and if they can keep playing the game, great. But $ will be off the table for 90% of existing kids who go D1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro soccer for females is a disaster.

Guess you don't watch.

[Anonymous]

I’m talking about the toll on the player for less money that a first year at any shop in town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m talking about the toll on the player for less money that a first year at any shop in town.

Sure, it can and should be higher BUT I guess you haven't followed the history and the direction it's been going.

[Anonymous]

The USL Superleague is a joke. Women who didn’t make it in the NWSL whose mommies and daddies are supplementing their 28k/year salary as 27 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Is the USL Superleague even considered “pro”?

[Anonymous]

So if my daughter is u13 and I want her to make $30,000/year playing soccer after high school should I take her to a GA club because they are the pro pathway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if my daughter is u13 and I want her to make $30,000/year playing soccer after high school should I take her to a GA club because they are the pro pathway?

They are not a pro pathway. So no. If they combine with NWSL and your daughter doesn’t want to goto school then maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if my daughter is u13 and I want her to make $30,000/year playing soccer after high school should I take her to a GA club because they are the pro pathway?

They are not a pro pathway. So no. If they combine with NWSL and your daughter doesn’t want to goto school then maybe?

There is no such thing as a pro pathway for soccer in the US. There are leagues you can play in and if you're good enough, you can go pro or go to college or play on the national team. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

I am now hearing that they are looking at changing the dates to August 1 -July 31. Evidently, there are more August birthdays than other month, and the majority will be trapped.

How did they not look at the data or think of this before making an announcement? It was August 1- July 31 before they made the change...why switch to September 1 ...and not have concrete data to support that change, or why make an announcement if didn't have time to do that? It's just not organized.

Anyways...from what I am hearing..it will most likely change to August 1 cutoff..but won't be sorted until the fall/thanksgiving.

I guess it only affects August birthdays, so not a huge impact, but still those parents won't know the new age group for another 7 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

I am now hearing that they are looking at changing the dates to August 1 -July 31. Evidently, there are more August birthdays than other month, and the majority will be trapped.

How did they not look at the data or think of this before making an announcement? It was August 1- July 31 before they made the change...why switch to September 1 ...and not have concrete data to support that change, or why make an announcement if didn't have time to do that? It's just not organized.

Anyways...from what I am hearing..it will most likely change to August 1 cutoff..but won't be sorted until the fall/thanksgiving.

I guess it only affects August birthdays, so not a huge impact, but still those parents won't know the new age group for another 7 months.

Who is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening, I heard a strong lean toward Sept 1, that it fixes the trapped player problem at a higher percentage than Aug 1.

Is that because of the reverse trap? Meaning most August kids started earlier and are on the younger side rather than the older side?

Because 8/1 would definitely prevent more kids from being trapped.

Agree that 8/1 would prevent more kids from being trapped. But the best solution I saw was posted on this discussion several pages back - Go to School Year with the age range being 9/1 to 7/31, and have August birthdays sorted by the grade that the kid is in.

How are these guys not understanding the downside of a 9/1 date? With an 8/1 cutoff August born kids who are young for their grade could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the older August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them. This can't be the intended outcome with a move back to school year. How do we get feedback to ECNL / Club Soccer about the 9/1 to 7/31 approach with August kids playing with their grade?

It also might be our hyper competitive bubble that is the DMV that has more parents of kids with August birthday's holding them back rather than starting on time.

I am now hearing that they are looking at changing the dates to August 1 -July 31. Evidently, there are more August birthdays than other month, and the majority will be trapped.

How did they not look at the data or think of this before making an announcement? It was August 1- July 31 before they made the change...why switch to September 1 ...and not have concrete data to support that change, or why make an announcement if didn't have time to do that? It's just not organized.

Anyways...from what I am hearing..it will most likely change to August 1 cutoff..but won't be sorted until the fall/thanksgiving.

I guess it only affects August birthdays, so not a huge impact, but still those parents won't know the new age group for another 7 months.

a lot of words with 0 substance. Where are you "hearing" this? It would only make sense on a state/local level since 9/1 was pretty clear in all the announcements.

[Anonymous]

Until the leagues like ecnl (I know us club) and ga make formal announcements, people will be spewing this crap. I don’t know what’s taking so long

[Anonymous]

Get out of here with 8/1 garbage. The only questions are if MLSN and GA stay BY and if ECNL goes GY for juniors/seniors. It's staying 9/1 for everyone else. It's been announced in fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Until the leagues like ecnl (I know us club) and ga make formal announcements, people will be spewing this crap. I don’t know what’s taking so long

The leagues are run by the same guy pushing for 1000 posts and this thread to the moon !