ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

It was actually working really well at all levels. And the US was building and increasing enrollment year after year.

Also our U20 girls national teams weren't losing to North Korea when school year was in place.

Soccer participation has been flat since the 99ers boom. It marginally peaked at 2010, but and was dipping back to its fairly flat baseline of the past 24 years. Before 2000 it was much lower.

Also, the YNTs always complied with FIFA and were birth year based. So before and after 2016 it was BY at that level.

They only have 5 H2H with North Korea and it’s split evenly. 2-1-2. Sort of a silly heuristic considering the format and the fact that North Korea has been pretty successful at the u20 level, and that basically every time they face each other it’s a totally different team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

It was actually working really well at all levels. And the US was building and increasing enrollment year after year.

Also our U20 girls national teams weren't losing to North Korea when school year was in place.

Soccer participation has been flat since the 99ers boom. It marginally peaked at 2010, but and was dipping back to its fairly flat baseline of the past 24 years. Before 2000 it was much lower.

Also, the YNTs always complied with FIFA and were birth year based. So before and after 2016 it was BY at that level.

They only have 5 H2H with North Korea and it’s split evenly. 2-1-2. Sort of a silly heuristic considering the format and the fact that North Korea has been pretty successful at the u20 level, and that basically every time they face each other it’s a totally different team.

I know YNT are birth year always have been and always will be?… but won 3 U20 golds and made it to at least the Qrt final or placed before US switched everyone to birth year. Since then they have not made it past the group stage twice and placed 3rd.

Maybe a system that from the beginning disenfranchises 40% of its players isn’t a good system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

Enrollment as a % of population increased after we moved to BY? Source? I’ve only seen data for the opposite.

[Anonymous]

So, when/where is this secret tribunal in November where all the decisions will be made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

Well Us Club sanctions ECNL they oversee many more clubs/leagues than just ECNL. The president of ECNL is also a member of the executive team at us club soccer. They are aligned on wanting to switch to school year.

ECNL is us club. What’s so hard to wrap your head around. When he says us club he is talking about himself.

[Anonymous]

I love showing up in the morning to find that this thread is always grinding and getting stronger.

It's like a hot soccer mom's favorite sourdough bread starter...just keeps giving better and better content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arguing the pros and cons of SY vs. BY is pointless. SY will bring more revenue to ECNL and better align with their business interests, so they will do it. They already hinted in the podcast that they can if they want to, but they want to play nice to give other leagues a chance to change together.

They want to play nice? lol if they go alone that will be the end

If they go it alone, ECNL will dilute its brand via RL and expansion. And when that happens more coaches will attend GA events. And when that happens, GA will gain share of ex placement. And when that happens talent, and clubs will begin to move. Either it opens the door for a new league, or GA reaps some benefits.

Regardless, ECNL cannot “technically” change it on their own. In the current structure it would have to be approved by Club, and it seems ECNL is confident club would let them.

ECNL showcase is exclusively ECNL only. RL has its own event on a different date.

ECNL will not dilute itself. Instead, it will have multiple leagues of tiers. Socal already has three tiers. ECNL only league will be tightly controlled to prevent any dilution.

Yes, I didn’t say RL would be at NL showcases or events. More players will create different demands. ECNL will absolutely sacrifice NL admission to expand on the platform level. They already have a history of that. That will dilute.

In the club level it will be awful as politics multiplies with more kids and teams. And that will dilute. These decisions won’t be “tightly controlled by ECNL”

If you expand the pond, you dilute the existing chemistry - this is not a terribly hard concept to get.

If I remember correctly, ECNL girls side took 3 top GA team and RL took 1 top GA team, so they know how to leverage their brand to make GA a 2nd league. No ECNL team switch to GA.

SDSC Surf is a GA team and their boy side is in ECNL, not MLS. I bet they are biding their time and waiting for their term to let their girl join RL (not even NL), and they will drop GA.

Nope, SDSC SURF (GA) has links to San Diego SURF (ECNL). They literally practice 15 minutes from each other. SDSC is how Surf keeps a foot in both GA and ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, when/where is this secret tribunal in November where all the decisions will be made?

Exactly my question!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

It was actually working really well at all levels. And the US was building and increasing enrollment year after year.

Also our U20 girls national teams weren't losing to North Korea when school year was in place.

Soccer participation has been flat since the 99ers boom. It marginally peaked at 2010, but and was dipping back to its fairly flat baseline of the past 24 years. Before 2000 it was much lower.

Also, the YNTs always complied with FIFA and were birth year based. So before and after 2016 it was BY at that level.

They only have 5 H2H with North Korea and it’s split evenly. 2-1-2. Sort of a silly heuristic considering the format and the fact that North Korea has been pretty successful at the u20 level, and that basically every time they face each other it’s a totally different team.

I know YNT are birth year always have been and always will be?… but won 3 U20 golds and made it to at least the Qrt final or placed before US switched everyone to birth year. Since then they have not made it past the group stage twice and placed 3rd.

Maybe a system that from the beginning disenfranchises 40% of its players isn’t a good system.

I’m not sure that’s an isolated variable. Before ECNL/GA it was DA, before DA it was DPL, Classic, ODP.

I think the qualitative player pool has gotten better in the US. And considering BY has always been the case for YNT, I think there are more likely:

The world YNTs have gotten stronger making the tournament more competitive.

The selection process in the US has gotten worse.

Women’s professional leagues in in Europe have reaped the benefits from the FIFA and UEFA changes in 2009 to the women’s game that show up in the U18+ international play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

Enrollment as a % of population increased after we moved to BY? Source? I’ve only seen data for the opposite.

No, you haven’t, and that is not what poster said.

[Anonymous]

Just wait until parents start screeching about all the new girls clubs that ECNL will need to let in to make SY happen.

Oh you didn't consider that ECNLs only bargaining chip they can use with clubs outside ECNL is to admit them into ECNL.

I hope US Soccer puts a halt to the madness. Soccer in America is in alignment with cutoffs used by the rest of the world. NCAA is on the verge of blowing up. Which btw is why ECNL is pushing for SY so urgently right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wait until parents start screeching about all the new girls clubs that ECNL will need to let in to make SY happen.

Oh you didn't consider that ECNLs only bargaining chip they can use with clubs outside ECNL is to admit them into ECNL.

I hope US Soccer puts a halt to the madness. Soccer in America is in alignment with cutoffs used by the rest of the world. NCAA is on the verge of blowing up. Which btw is why ECNL is pushing for SY so urgently right now.

Agree with you until the last sentence. No current recruiting problem outside of roster caps, why would ECNL push so urgently now if NCAA is about to blow up?

I imagine the more likely scenario is that one of the ECNL EDs own sons is a trapped kid, so he tends to be sympathetic to the argument “if not for birth month, my child would be amazing and have his choice of P4 NIL deals.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

It was actually working really well at all levels. And the US was building and increasing enrollment year after year.

Also our U20 girls national teams weren't losing to North Korea when school year was in place.

Soccer participation has been flat since the 99ers boom. It marginally peaked at 2010, but and was dipping back to its fairly flat baseline of the past 24 years. Before 2000 it was much lower.

Also, the YNTs always complied with FIFA and were birth year based. So before and after 2016 it was BY at that level.

They only have 5 H2H with North Korea and it’s split evenly. 2-1-2. Sort of a silly heuristic considering the format and the fact that North Korea has been pretty successful at the u20 level, and that basically every time they face each other it’s a totally different team.

Where's the supporting evidence?
Or we should just take your word for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

It was actually working really well at all levels. And the US was building and increasing enrollment year after year.

Also our U20 girls national teams weren't losing to North Korea when school year was in place.

Soccer participation has been flat since the 99ers boom. It marginally peaked at 2010, but and was dipping back to its fairly flat baseline of the past 24 years. Before 2000 it was much lower.

Also, the YNTs always complied with FIFA and were birth year based. So before and after 2016 it was BY at that level.

They only have 5 H2H with North Korea and it’s split evenly. 2-1-2. Sort of a silly heuristic considering the format and the fact that North Korea has been pretty successful at the u20 level, and that basically every time they face each other it’s a totally different team.

Where's the supporting evidence?
Or we should just take your word for it?

Dude, google it yourself. All 3 points PP made are easy to find. Took me 2 minutes to check after your post. The most difficult was the US/NK U-20 head to head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College Soccer Truth started this rumor in July. Then they say there’s not enough buy in a few days ago. Which one is it?

We will all find out soon enough.

So how exactly does ECNL convince these other leagues to side by them..

I'd start by reminding USYS that they register 3 million kids per year, 99.9% of which have no aspirations to go pro or play internationally. Throw out that there could be a new competitor offering the exact same thing as them, but without trapped player problems, and a higher likelihood that kids could play with their friends, who would start with significant market share. Then I'd ask them how they project their enrollment numbers over the next decade to look if that's their primary differentiating feature.

Soccer enrollment as a % of population was much lower when it was SY based more than a decade ago. How will you square that projection? This experiment has been run before.

Enrollment as a % of population increased after we moved to BY? Source? I’ve only seen data for the opposite.

No, you haven’t, and that is not what poster said.

That is exactly what the poster said, sorry. Was "much lower when it was SY" means that it is higher since the change. Aspen State of Play reports show the opposite. You can say whatever provably wrong nonsense you want on here, but if that was a true statement, where is it coming from? I'd genuinely like to know if there are any sources out there which support that statement, as it would certainly influence my opinion.