ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who said SY was stupid because girls don’t care about playing with school friends. My daughter is in middle school and half of her MS team showed up to tryout for her club team because they all wanted to play on the same team together. Most will not make it due to the varying level of play. But they made their parents drive 20/30 min away so they could try to do it.

Also I’ve seen a lot of players show up to tryout because they know a kid from school on the other club teams. Girls want friends on their team and not saying they have to be from The same school To be friends but it is a special moment when you get the best of both worlds. School year age changes are going to be great for soccer and youth players.

This argument makes sense for rec and those learning, not really so much for elite travel leagues, where it's often kids from around larger areas and many different schools even if they are in the same grade. The better elite argument has to do with college recruiting.

There really is no elite league and teams. It is all rec. Clubs/leagues try to give the illusion of elite for marketing purposes. This becomes more and more obvious when your kids get older...after you spent the money and realize that soccer was "only" for funzies.

It's all relative. It may be true that few if any teams in the DMV are truly elite, but, regardless of how good or bad they are, the ECNL girls teams and MLSN boys teams are dramatically better than all the rest. Playing for those teams may not lead many to the pros, but they do lead most to college soccer. Regardless of where they do and don't lead, they are a fundamentally different experience, and the kids who want that type of experience could not care less if their teammates go to the same school.

Many ECNL and MLSN teams certainly have some elite players but the whole youth ecosystem is a rec based teams industry.

The coaching is rec level.

Yup. And if anything other than fun was the goal, after the kid quits soccer in HS or 1st year in college, they are only left with one or two Al Bundy type HS football stories and a wasted childhood having been to about 1,500 practices, missed chances to play other sports and broke parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

There's no waivers. If you are good enough and your club allows to you to play up, it will happen. Otherwise you play on age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

One thought might be that what they did last time didn't work out so well. So instead, they want to be a little more proactive and prepare for what's to come. Still don't think there will be anything substantive at all this next year. I do think though that the leagues will make announcements about their plans for 26/27 and there will be some nuance that people don't expect. Still think the biggest shoe to drop will be what MSLN and GA decide to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

Sucks to be at your club honestly. Anyone with a brain is looking ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

As expected. Coaches have 90% of the team picked before tryouts. They aren't going to try and do some 'math' to figure out a birthday strategy. Next spring though when they roll up to tryouts and have, maybe 40% of a team picked, then things will get interesting and they will wish they had done a little prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

Sucks to be at your club honestly. Anyone with a brain is looking ahead.

Top ECNL club in the nation. My son is the only Q4 in the new NL team. Our rival ECNL club did the same thing. I believe most ECNL clubs did not consider birth months during tryouts. I have to admit the BY parent is correct at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

Regardless of birth months, why aren't all of your RL players given the opportunity to tryout for the NL team. With no BY SY change would team composition just exist in perpetuity? That does not sound like an environment that promotes, growth, advancement, or intraclub competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

One thought might be that what they did last time didn't work out so well. So instead, they want to be a little more proactive and prepare for what's to come. Still don't think there will be anything substantive at all this next year. I do think though that the leagues will make announcements about their plans for 26/27 and there will be some nuance that people don't expect. Still think the biggest shoe to drop will be what MSLN and GA decide to do.

You are assuming they will learn from mistakes. I don't have that faith. The only thing I think most learned from last time is to absolutely not allow the 'old' age group teams to stay together regardless of how much some parents will complain and beg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

Regardless of birth months, why aren't all of your RL players given the opportunity to tryout for the NL team. With no BY SY change would team composition just exist in perpetuity? That does not sound like an environment that promotes, growth, advancement, or intraclub competition.

Because most coaches decide whether they are interested in a player after watching them in drills/warm-ups, not what's on their birth certificate. If Q4 RL players aren't at a certain level, they won't be even looked at. The kid will need some "it" factor, be it speed, skill OR soccer IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I Initially had a SY over BY preference. But the one thing I have learned from these 900 pages is that if I really have a preference that hopes to benefit my kid, it just means my kid is not elite. So I am trying to convince myself I don't have a preference.

Here's my rant, enjoy ...

A lot more people need to accept that their kid is not elite. "Elite" kids could possibly be pros, and often have to settle for college. Bottom half of D1, all of D2, and all of D3 just aren't that elite and should not have to sacrifice so much to play at that level. Reaching your full potential, if it's playing at those levels or below, should be achievable on teams with friends with almost no national travel.

I would not call my kid elite, but loves the sport, practices extra outside the team, and is good enough to play on varsity HS. She has no aspirations to play in college - school is #1. Maybe she could play at some mediocre D2/D3 school, but then just go to a better school and play club (if they have it) or coed leagues for fun. She should not need to travel by plane to a tournament, unless it's a fun trip with her best friends. She doesn't need to travel more than two hours to find a team at her competitive level for league play. She shouldn't be on a team without a single friend from her grade at school. Soccer tournaments shouldn't require missing any school. Yet in a system with kids separated by BY and 7+ club v club tiers, she has to do all this just to play club at the same level as HS varsity. Friends of the same ability level, same school, and same class are spread across different club teams. It's dumb.

BY was part of a systemic problem where kids are treated like aspiring national team players way too far below the pro-pathway. Happy to see it end. Now start consolidating ECNL-RL, GA-R, USYS NL, DPL, and NAL. If more kids under SY join club soccer, and can play with their classmates, there is going to be more interest in actually being on the same team with those friends. To do that, we're going to have to do something about the leagues next.

It would be easier to argue for ECNL-NL and GA to stay BY if they were more elite. But even those levels dip too far down into the talent pool to justify it. If the number of national teams were more in line with just MLSN academy teams, maybe.

My guess is most BY proponents fall into this profile: their kid is most likely headed to play lower level college soccer or top out at high school soccer; but to achieve their max potential they need the age advantage under BY; so they make some dubious claims about how BY is helping a tiny group of players much better than their own kid and how important that is. Meanwhile, that tiny group is too busy kicking butt to actually even care about BY vs SY. Some sit just outside that tiny group with a delusional belief that maintaining BY gives their kid a chance to break into that group. The typical SY proponent has accepted that their kid isn't elite to the extent that the whole system should be set up like a national team when that causes so many other problems. They are either advantaged by SY or don't fear any disadvantage.

Slow clap for this person! Nailed it.

Nailed if for whom?

This is where you all just miss the mark. This is an argument in favor of low ambition, from a parent of a player with low ambition.

All good. There already is a place for that kid! Varsity HS is a perfect example, suggested by the author….which isn’t played on BY… the whole debate about age cutoff, RAE and too league structure between MLSN/GA/ECNL doesn’t apply to this parent or their player.

But by golly, they have thoughts that must certainly be relevant to those families that DO have high ambition kids and kids at the top of the game….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

One thought might be that what they did last time didn't work out so well. So instead, they want to be a little more proactive and prepare for what's to come. Still don't think there will be anything substantive at all this next year. I do think though that the leagues will make announcements about their plans for 26/27 and there will be some nuance that people don't expect. Still think the biggest shoe to drop will be what MSLN and GA decide to do.

What if there is no “other shoe to drop?”

This is like the nutso parents demanding a change for 25/26 and constant “updates” from the league on when it was pretty clearly stated…26/27.

What if…just humor me…MLSN and GA are silent because they’re not changing? Hence why USSF gave TWO options. (After all…if nobody was not changing…wouldn’t they have just made it SY, and wouldn’t that have been an easy transition play for 25/26?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Focus on the “if any”

There will be. There are just too many edge cases to drag this out for another year. Clearly they didn't want to announce anything "early" because of various tryout schedules nationwide, but there absolutely be a few waivers set up for special cases.

The last time they did this, if there were any transition plans, no one followed them. The biggest clubs in the country literally did nothing until right before tryouts for the new age brackets. Why would this time be any different?

Just finished ECNL tryouts. No Q4 RL players were called up to join the NL tryout group. It looks like the NL coach doesn't care about birth months for the upcoming season. So I believe there will be no transit plan, and the club will do a hard switch next year.

Sucks to be at your club honestly. Anyone with a brain is looking ahead.

The problem is these clubs are not run by people with brains, so the experience you quoted above is probably the norm.