ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

The plan has always been 26/27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

I think you misread things. No Q4 RLs were promoted to NL. If they stay RL, it wouldn't be surprising if they likely will start/play on their current team. That makes sense and probably would be better to get on NL now if they are bench-sitters at the higher level.

The fate of Q4 RLs, BTW, has been a topic of much prediction here -- some believe it should be some sort of golden ticket to promotion while others think such a jump is more far-fatched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only to think USYS could have had it all. They have the state cups and the u-littles but failed on college exposure and now instead of just losing players to the elite leagues, they are losing entire clubs.

I mean, they did have it all lol. The structure was just too archaic to implement any change and before they could do much it was over. They needed to take steps 20 years ago (once easy access to online registrations became available) to scrap all of the state orgs, consolidate into a few (4-5) regions and get aggressive with any club that wanted to play outside USYS. And create some elite club leagues... But they didn't and the writing is on the wall now. They are the Kmart of youth soccer orgs now.

They DID/DO have regions with their NL -- which is/was based on promotion/relegation BUT interestingly for that ultimately couldn't compete with the club-based elite leagues concept that emerged. Those leagues -- based on clubs with strong reputations -- proved to be talent magnets and popular with parents -- although I've always found it fascinating seeing the huge gaps between the "elite" leagues 1st and last vs the differences of the leagues at highest levels of USYS where it was true in that you "earned your place." I guess the top "elites" needed their cannon fodder -- and that's not surprising as the American way often can be less about earning things and more about appearances. Still, 1 would have thought the USYS would have fared better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To further cement previous comments here about clubs aligning to umbrella organizations, the Charleston SC area made the following changes:

SC Surf Girls leave GA for ECRL and NPL. Their boys are in ECNL and ECRL.

CSC and JIYSC left NPL for both boys and girls to go to MLSN2 and DPL respectively.

Clubs pointed out in their announcements they would be under the same umbrella banner.

Two clubs in Northern California also leaving GA for RL. GA also added two girls clubs connected with boys currently in MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

Trying to please the BY crazies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plan has always been 26/27.

Well yeah but there has been speculating on whether leagues or clubs might try and ‘ease’ the change in with some proactive measures.

For the clubs, unless the leagues force them to do something, they will do nothing until the day before tryouts next spring. They may talk a big game but nothing will be done. That’s what happened last time and I don’t think they learned anything from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

I think you misread things. No Q4 RLs were promoted to NL. If they stay RL, it wouldn't be surprising if they likely will start/play on their current team. That makes sense and probably would be better to get on NL now if they are bench-sitters at the higher level.

The fate of Q4 RLs, BTW, has been a topic of much prediction here -- some believe it should be some sort of golden ticket to promotion while others think such a jump is more far-fatched.

During the last time they switched the age groups, a ton of 2nd team players became first team players at the club I coached at (large ECNL level). I mean, who else were they going to take? You had a couple Q4s, some players from the younger team and then? Except for a few first teamers left behind they were the best players on the teams.

So far, this change over is looking exactly like the last time so I’m expecting the same again.

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, and maybe I'm way off on this opinion. But my experience throughout the years (12 years & 3 kids) with our directors & involvement with U.S soccer/ECNL ect... leaves me with the impression that these people running everything at some point have a great "soccer player pro resume" but have no clue how go run a business. All of our directors have been incredibly nice and affable but most of the time seem to shoot themselves in the foot more often than not. Just not the sharpest knife in the drawer type.I'm guessing this trickles up to the top of U.S soccer with the same types of people making decisions regarding this BY/SY mess. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure they love what they do, but maybe someone outside the soccer community could figure this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

I think you misread things. No Q4 RLs were promoted to NL. If they stay RL, it wouldn't be surprising if they likely will start/play on their current team. That makes sense and probably would be better to get on NL now if they are bench-sitters at the higher level.

The fate of Q4 RLs, BTW, has been a topic of much prediction here -- some believe it should be some sort of golden ticket to promotion while others think such a jump is more far-fatched.

During the last time they switched the age groups, a ton of 2nd team players became first team players at the club I coached at (large ECNL level). I mean, who else were they going to take? You had a couple Q4s, some players from the younger team and then? Except for a few first teamers left behind they were the best players on the teams.

So far, this change over is looking exactly like the last time so I’m expecting the same again.

I think this time will be different because the available players will be less. This is because there are less months 4 vs. 5 AND number of last time players were forced into a new age group because they couldn't play down whereas this time SeptQ4 can still play up.

[Anonymous]

Additionally, the AugSepQ4 moving up WAS where all the players were last time because of RAE. This time that grouping tends to have the lowest levels of participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, and maybe I'm way off on this opinion. But my experience throughout the years (12 years & 3 kids) with our directors & involvement with U.S soccer/ECNL ect... leaves me with the impression that these people running everything at some point have a great "soccer player pro resume" but have no clue how go run a business. All of our directors have been incredibly nice and affable but most of the time seem to shoot themselves in the foot more often than not. Just not the sharpest knife in the drawer type.I'm guessing this trickles up to the top of U.S soccer with the same types of people making decisions regarding this BY/SY mess. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm sure they love what they do, but maybe someone outside the soccer community could figure this out.

This could not be more true. Usually well intentioned but cannot get out of their own way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

I think you misread things. No Q4 RLs were promoted to NL. If they stay RL, it wouldn't be surprising if they likely will start/play on their current team. That makes sense and probably would be better to get on NL now if they are bench-sitters at the higher level.

The fate of Q4 RLs, BTW, has been a topic of much prediction here -- some believe it should be some sort of golden ticket to promotion while others think such a jump is more far-fatched.

During the last time they switched the age groups, a ton of 2nd team players became first team players at the club I coached at (large ECNL level). I mean, who else were they going to take? You had a couple Q4s, some players from the younger team and then? Except for a few first teamers left behind they were the best players on the teams.

So far, this change over is looking exactly like the last time so I’m expecting the same again.

I think this time will be different because the available players will be less. This is because there are less months 4 vs. 5 AND number of last time players were forced into a new age group because they couldn't play down whereas this time SeptQ4 can still play up.

Nah, lots of teams attempted to 'stay together' last time and all play up. So a team of SY 07/08s tried to play up at 07. It always failed within a year and they switched to true BY the next year. This will be almost exactly like last time. I see nothing different so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY crowd now just resorting to nonsensical arguments and incoherent streams of consciousness.

That's all of us at this point. There has been so little new news and/or 'leaks' from 'directors' that this thread is in serious danger.

The ECNL tryout is being held in our area, and no Q4 players pulled out of the RL team during the tryout. I seriously doubt any transit plan.

Yeah, local ECRL demoted all Q4 kids. Pretty odd.Almost seems like "redshirting" for Q4s isn't a bad option for next year, like play another sport, rather than get demoted or sit on the bench all year for a team hoping to stockpile for 2026. Seems like getting kids to quit soccer is part of some bizarrely backwards master plan at many clubs.

I think you misread things. No Q4 RLs were promoted to NL. If they stay RL, it wouldn't be surprising if they likely will start/play on their current team. That makes sense and probably would be better to get on NL now if they are bench-sitters at the higher level.

The fate of Q4 RLs, BTW, has been a topic of much prediction here -- some believe it should be some sort of golden ticket to promotion while others think such a jump is more far-fatched.

During the last time they switched the age groups, a ton of 2nd team players became first team players at the club I coached at (large ECNL level). I mean, who else were they going to take? You had a couple Q4s, some players from the younger team and then? Except for a few first teamers left behind they were the best players on the teams.

So far, this change over is looking exactly like the last time so I’m expecting the same again.

I think this time will be different because the available players will be less. This is because there are less months 4 vs. 5 AND number of last time players were forced into a new age group because they couldn't play down whereas this time SeptQ4 can still play up.

Nah, lots of teams attempted to 'stay together' last time and all play up. So a team of SY 07/08s tried to play up at 07. It always failed within a year and they switched to true BY the next year. This will be almost exactly like last time. I see nothing different so far.

Again, the numbers are different this time. Less SeptQ4 to join Jan-Aug, where the bulk of the numbers are vs. Bulk of Jul-Dec joining Jan-Jun last time. Another factor could be if MLSN and GA stay BY (I don't think they will). Still, that, too, could change the transition as people vote for the league/system with their feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only to think USYS could have had it all. They have the state cups and the u-littles but failed on college exposure and now instead of just losing players to the elite leagues, they are losing entire clubs.

I mean, they did have it all lol. The structure was just too archaic to implement any change and before they could do much it was over. They needed to take steps 20 years ago (once easy access to online registrations became available) to scrap all of the state orgs, consolidate into a few (4-5) regions and get aggressive with any club that wanted to play outside USYS. And create some elite club leagues... But they didn't and the writing is on the wall now. They are the Kmart of youth soccer orgs now.

They DID/DO have regions with their NL -- which is/was based on promotion/relegation BUT interestingly for that ultimately couldn't compete with the club-based elite leagues concept that emerged. Those leagues -- based on clubs with strong reputations -- proved to be talent magnets and popular with parents -- although I've always found it fascinating seeing the huge gaps between the "elite" leagues 1st and last vs the differences of the leagues at highest levels of USYS where it was true in that you "earned your place." I guess the top "elites" needed their cannon fodder -- and that's not surprising as the American way often can be less about earning things and more about appearances. Still, 1 would have thought the USYS would have fared better.

I always felt large clubs went the ECNL/RL/NPL or MLSN/GA/DPL route because they got a team at every age group in that league. The USYS system rewarded individual teams, not the entire club. Big clubs, IOT protect their bottom line, gravitated to a club based model, allowing weaker age groups at that club to play a higher level than they merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only to think USYS could have had it all. They have the state cups and the u-littles but failed on college exposure and now instead of just losing players to the elite leagues, they are losing entire clubs.

I mean, they did have it all lol. The structure was just too archaic to implement any change and before they could do much it was over. They needed to take steps 20 years ago (once easy access to online registrations became available) to scrap all of the state orgs, consolidate into a few (4-5) regions and get aggressive with any club that wanted to play outside USYS. And create some elite club leagues... But they didn't and the writing is on the wall now. They are the Kmart of youth soccer orgs now.

They DID/DO have regions with their NL -- which is/was based on promotion/relegation BUT interestingly for that ultimately couldn't compete with the club-based elite leagues concept that emerged. Those leagues -- based on clubs with strong reputations -- proved to be talent magnets and popular with parents -- although I've always found it fascinating seeing the huge gaps between the "elite" leagues 1st and last vs the differences of the leagues at highest levels of USYS where it was true in that you "earned your place." I guess the top "elites" needed their cannon fodder -- and that's not surprising as the American way often can be less about earning things and more about appearances. Still, 1 would have thought the USYS would have fared better.

I always felt large clubs went the ECNL/RL/NPL or MLSN/GA/DPL route because they got a team at every age group in that league. The USYS system rewarded individual teams, not the entire club. Big clubs, IOT protect their bottom line, gravitated to a club based model, allowing weaker age groups at that club to play a higher level than they merit.

Yes, so the play in the elite leagues ironically can be far less competitive than the teams that won to get to the USYS NL. BUT the success of the elite leagues led the USYS to create E64 (likely too late). Also ironic now the elite leagues are rushing to build their own lower tiers that may lead to promotion/regulation but that's harder when its club vs. team based.