ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

They pulled one RL player (Not Q4) to join the new NL team. My son is the only one in Q4, so I'm kind of proud of him that he made the team based on his level, not his birth month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They pulled one RL player (Not Q4) to join the new NL team. My son is the only one in Q4, so I'm kind of proud of him that he made the team based on his level, not his birth month.

Also, before the tryout, there is a 30-minute scrimmage between NL and RL, which NL won 5:0. The coach talked to that RL player after the game, and he joined our group during the tryout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm you missed the point that all the RL kids should get to tryout regardless of birth month.

[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?

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?)

Well the vast majority of MlSN clubs and GA clubs have the majority of their teams in USYS, US Club or another league that is going SY. So they kinda need some direction on how to organize themselves. At the moment, none of them know what to do! So yeah, a shoe has to drop. There is no universe where these two leagues just stay mum and give their members the finger.

[Anonymous]

A club I know has ECRL and just got GA-Aspire. Going to be interesting if GA doesn’t go school year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm you missed the point that all the RL kids should get to tryout regardless of birth month.

Yeah, I misread it, but in my own defense this is a thread about switching from BY to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A club I know has ECRL and just got GA-Aspire. Going to be interesting if GA doesn’t go school year!

They have to drop one for the other and I think GA has announced they are going SY in 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A club I know has ECRL and just got GA-Aspire. Going to be interesting if GA doesn’t go school year!

They have to drop one for the other and I think GA has announced they are going SY in 26-27.

GA hasn’t announced anything.

[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.

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.

This is what all of us rational people have been telling the crazy faction of our SY parent friends. RL Q4s are not going to be elevated to NL because of an age change. They have to do earn it through doing the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?)

Well the vast majority of MlSN clubs and GA clubs have the majority of their teams in USYS, US Club or another league that is going SY. So they kinda need some direction on how to organize themselves. At the moment, none of them know what to do! So yeah, a shoe has to drop. There is no universe where these two leagues just stay mum and give their members the finger.

lol wut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what all of us rational people have been telling the crazy faction of our SY parent friends. RL Q4s are not going to be elevated to NL because of an age change. They have to do earn it through doing the work.

They're wrong that Q4 kids would somehow benefit this year (coaches only care about the next win). But absolutely they will in 26/27. I mean, who else is going to be on new teams?

Personal experience- I coached two 2nd teams last time this happened (07/08s) and (06/07s). All of the 08s and 07s on the 2nd teams became first team players after the switch to BY. They were also the best players on those new BY teams. So... I am expecting the same this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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?)

Well the vast majority of MlSN clubs and GA clubs have the majority of their teams in USYS, US Club or another league that is going SY. So they kinda need some direction on how to organize themselves. At the moment, none of them know what to do! So yeah, a shoe has to drop. There is no universe where these two leagues just stay mum and give their members the finger.

lol wut?

What don't you understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what all of us rational people have been telling the crazy faction of our SY parent friends. RL Q4s are not going to be elevated to NL because of an age change. They have to do earn it through doing the work.

They're wrong that Q4 kids would somehow benefit this year (coaches only care about the next win). But absolutely they will in 26/27. I mean, who else is going to be on new teams?

Personal experience- I coached two 2nd teams last time this happened (07/08s) and (06/07s). All of the 08s and 07s on the 2nd teams became first team players after the switch to BY. They were also the best players on those new BY teams. So... I am expecting the same this time.

I think it DOES make sense at the u-little level (no ECNL teams at those age groups) -- which sounds like was your experience because what, those kids were 9, 10, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

My club is reorganizing some of the U-little teams early. I've heard this from a few clubs. My Q4 second team kid is now a first team kid on a SY organized team. Just one parent's experience!

This is what all of us rational people have been telling the crazy faction of our SY parent friends. RL Q4s are not going to be elevated to NL because of an age change. They have to do earn it through doing the work.

They're wrong that Q4 kids would somehow benefit this year (coaches only care about the next win). But absolutely they will in 26/27. I mean, who else is going to be on new teams?

Personal experience- I coached two 2nd teams last time this happened (07/08s) and (06/07s). All of the 08s and 07s on the 2nd teams became first team players after the switch to BY. They were also the best players on those new BY teams. So... I am expecting the same this time.

I think it DOES make sense at the u-little level (no ECNL teams at those age groups) -- which sounds like was your experience because what, those kids were 9, 10, then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

This is what all of us rational people have been telling the crazy faction of our SY parent friends. RL Q4s are not going to be elevated to NL because of an age change. They have to do earn it through doing the work.

They're wrong that Q4 kids would somehow benefit this year (coaches only care about the next win). But absolutely they will in 26/27. I mean, who else is going to be on new teams?

Personal experience- I coached two 2nd teams last time this happened (07/08s) and (06/07s). All of the 08s and 07s on the 2nd teams became first team players after the switch to BY. They were also the best players on those new BY teams. So... I am expecting the same this time.

I think it DOES make sense at the u-little level (no ECNL teams at those age groups) -- which sounds like was your experience because what, those kids were 9, 10, then?

My club is reorganizing some of the U-little teams early. I've heard this from a few clubs. My Q4 second team kid is now a first team kid on a SY organized team. Just one parent's experience!