ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chances are most top squads have between 0-3 Sept-Dec. kids on their roster at u13 and above. My daughter is a Q4, I don't expect a lot of movement in her club - or in rival area clubs - even when the SY shift goes into effect. The most realistic scenario is those kids get pushed down to the NL team the year below, which pushes the bubble kids off the roster. Yes there will be exceptions and anecdotes that suggest otherwise, but I doubt you see many q3&Q4 RL kids take NL kids slot in the age group below.

There won’t be many Sept-Q4 RL kids that take NL kids slots because their arenero many of those kids to begin with?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the truth: This whole shift started in 2016 because Jurgen Klinsmann pushed for it, thinking it would help the USMNT pipeline. So US Soccer made a top-down switch to BY not because it helped youth soccer, but because it supposedly helped elite development.

Result?

Our national team didn’t get any better. Youth soccer enrollment dropped. Rec programs took a hit.

So now, years later, returning to SY is a pragmatic correction. It’s not about ideology or development theory...it’s about participation. Getting more kids into the game. Clubs, especially on the rec side, realized that SY calendars just work better for families, schools, and communities.

Elite programs like ECNL and MLSN are loud about it, but they’re not driving the change. They’re just the ones posting about it. Meanwhile, rec soccer has the volume and the numbers and the reach and, frankly, the profit potential that makes the whole system sustainable.

Bottom line:
This is a numbers game, and rec programs have the numbers. If they’re leaning SY (which they are), that’s where the tide is going. Whether MLSN or GA stick with BY might matter for their own branding or structure, but it won’t steer the ship for US youth soccer as a whole (nor should it).

Very well put! I do wonder if our Men’s National team was doing better or if they lived up to this “Golden Generation” label, would the switch have happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://theecnl.com/news/2025/5/1/real-colorado-academy-colorado-rapids-youth-join-ecnl-texas-conference.aspx

Please discuss.....

Bottom line:

1. ECNL and MLS Next are at war with each other.

2. Colorado was a proxy battle and ECNL won this one (but does Colorado even matter except for Real Colorado on the girls' side?).

3. MLS Next added a bunch of smaller or less-successful clubs to their platform in Colorado, but very likely won't be enough for it to matter without Real Colorado and Colorado Rapids Youth not involved.

4. Colorado Rapids *Academy* and Colorado Rapids *Youth* are distinct organizations. Academy is part of the actual MLS Rapids organization and Rapids Youth just shares branding (maybe they will change their branding or be forced to?) but does not have any official connection to the MLS organization.

5. This decision by ECNL, Real Colorado, and Colorado Rapids Youth is a consolidation and likely will negatively affect all of the other clubs and the state association. These were probably the two big players in the state and they just built a moat around themselves. They may be 'rivals' on the pitch, but they seem to have viewed the smaller clubs and state associations as the greater foe here.

6. Colorado is likely a lag indicator and not a lead indicator. Places like Colorado and DC don't set the tone for youth soccer, only California and Texas really can, do, and will

7. Again, this was just a proxy war that doesn't really matter anyways. ECNL won this one, but loyalties are fickle.

You’re an idiot. ECNL put out announcement that an ECNL team stayed in ECNL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the truth: This whole shift started in 2016 because Jurgen Klinsmann pushed for it, thinking it would help the USMNT pipeline. So US Soccer made a top-down switch to BY not because it helped youth soccer, but because it supposedly helped elite development.

Result?

Our national team didn’t get any better. Youth soccer enrollment dropped. Rec programs took a hit.

So now, years later, returning to SY is a pragmatic correction. It’s not about ideology or development theory...it’s about participation. Getting more kids into the game. Clubs, especially on the rec side, realized that SY calendars just work better for families, schools, and communities.

Elite programs like ECNL and MLSN are loud about it, but they’re not driving the change. They’re just the ones posting about it. Meanwhile, rec soccer has the volume and the numbers and the reach and, frankly, the profit potential that makes the whole system sustainable.

Bottom line:
This is a numbers game, and rec programs have the numbers. If they’re leaning SY (which they are), that’s where the tide is going. Whether MLSN or GA stick with BY might matter for their own branding or structure, but it won’t steer the ship for US youth soccer as a whole (nor should it).

Very well put! I do wonder if our Men’s National team was doing better or if they lived up to this “Golden Generation” label, would the switch have happened?

The USMNT is absolutely better. This idea that it’s debatable is insane.

Forget pay to play and all that parent-whining crap, the biggest obstacle to improvement and cracking into the top 10 (and staying there) is Article 19.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the truth: This whole shift started in 2016 because Jurgen Klinsmann pushed for it, thinking it would help the USMNT pipeline. So US Soccer made a top-down switch to BY not because it helped youth soccer, but because it supposedly helped elite development.

Result?

Our national team didn’t get any better. Youth soccer enrollment dropped. Rec programs took a hit.

So now, years later, returning to SY is a pragmatic correction. It’s not about ideology or development theory...it’s about participation. Getting more kids into the game. Clubs, especially on the rec side, realized that SY calendars just work better for families, schools, and communities.

Elite programs like ECNL and MLSN are loud about it, but they’re not driving the change. They’re just the ones posting about it. Meanwhile, rec soccer has the volume and the numbers and the reach and, frankly, the profit potential that makes the whole system sustainable.

Bottom line:
This is a numbers game, and rec programs have the numbers. If they’re leaning SY (which they are), that’s where the tide is going. Whether MLSN or GA stick with BY might matter for their own branding or structure, but it won’t steer the ship for US youth soccer as a whole (nor should it).

Very well put! I do wonder if our Men’s National team was doing better or if they lived up to this “Golden Generation” label, would the switch have happened?

The USMNT is absolutely better. This idea that it’s debatable is insane.

Forget pay to play and all that parent-whining crap, the biggest obstacle to improvement and cracking into the top 10 (and staying there) is Article 19.

Article 19 is the biggest obstacle to the rest of the world too. It’s why Asia and Africa have as hard a time and why only two countries in the all of the Americas are in the top 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

Exact same story here. I've seen my son play the #1 team in the country for his grade level and he dominates them. Yet in his BY hes not quite good enough to overtake a kid a year older at his best position the 10.

Can't wait to move him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

Exact same story here. I've seen my son play the #1 team in the country for his grade level and he dominates them. Yet in his BY hes not quite good enough to overtake a kid a year older at his best position the 10.

Can't wait to move him down.

This seems like a complete waste of a year. I've got to shop for a new team in like 6 months..... Whata headache.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

No…you’re confusing hope for facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the truth: This whole shift started in 2016 because Jurgen Klinsmann pushed for it, thinking it would help the USMNT pipeline. So US Soccer made a top-down switch to BY not because it helped youth soccer, but because it supposedly helped elite development.

Result?

Our national team didn’t get any better. Youth soccer enrollment dropped. Rec programs took a hit.

So now, years later, returning to SY is a pragmatic correction. It’s not about ideology or development theory...it’s about participation. Getting more kids into the game. Clubs, especially on the rec side, realized that SY calendars just work better for families, schools, and communities.

Elite programs like ECNL and MLSN are loud about it, but they’re not driving the change. They’re just the ones posting about it. Meanwhile, rec soccer has the volume and the numbers and the reach and, frankly, the profit potential that makes the whole system sustainable.

Bottom line:
This is a numbers game, and rec programs have the numbers. If they’re leaning SY (which they are), that’s where the tide is going. Whether MLSN or GA stick with BY might matter for their own branding or structure, but it won’t steer the ship for US youth soccer as a whole (nor should it).

Very well put! I do wonder if our Men’s National team was doing better or if they lived up to this “Golden Generation” label, would the switch have happened?

The USMNT is absolutely better. This idea that it’s debatable is insane.

Forget pay to play and all that parent-whining crap, the biggest obstacle to improvement and cracking into the top 10 (and staying there) is Article 19.

The recent performances show otherwise…the USMNT consists of divas, nepo babies and entitled brats….we can’t get past Panama now…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

Exact same story here. I've seen my son play the #1 team in the country for his grade level and he dominates them. Yet in his BY hes not quite good enough to overtake a kid a year older at his best position the 10.

Can't wait to move him down.

Ugh…wut?

You saw your son dominate at a GY / SY match? When and where? 🤣

And in your dreams, doesn’t count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the truth: This whole shift started in 2016 because Jurgen Klinsmann pushed for it, thinking it would help the USMNT pipeline. So US Soccer made a top-down switch to BY not because it helped youth soccer, but because it supposedly helped elite development.

Result?

Our national team didn’t get any better. Youth soccer enrollment dropped. Rec programs took a hit.

So now, years later, returning to SY is a pragmatic correction. It’s not about ideology or development theory...it’s about participation. Getting more kids into the game. Clubs, especially on the rec side, realized that SY calendars just work better for families, schools, and communities.

Elite programs like ECNL and MLSN are loud about it, but they’re not driving the change. They’re just the ones posting about it. Meanwhile, rec soccer has the volume and the numbers and the reach and, frankly, the profit potential that makes the whole system sustainable.

Bottom line:
This is a numbers game, and rec programs have the numbers. If they’re leaning SY (which they are), that’s where the tide is going. Whether MLSN or GA stick with BY might matter for their own branding or structure, but it won’t steer the ship for US youth soccer as a whole (nor should it).

Very well put! I do wonder if our Men’s National team was doing better or if they lived up to this “Golden Generation” label, would the switch have happened?

The USMNT is absolutely better. This idea that it’s debatable is insane.

Forget pay to play and all that parent-whining crap, the biggest obstacle to improvement and cracking into the top 10 (and staying there) is Article 19.

The recent performances show otherwise…the USMNT consists of divas, nepo babies and entitled brats….we can’t get past Panama now…

When we stop selling national team camp innvites or letting large club sell the spots we will have better players. Its a complete trail wreck right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://theecnl.com/news/2025/5/1/real-colorado-academy-colorado-rapids-youth-join-ecnl-texas-conference.aspx

Please discuss.....

Bottom line:

1. ECNL and MLS Next are at war with each other.

2. Colorado was a proxy battle and ECNL won this one (but does Colorado even matter except for Real Colorado on the girls' side?).

3. MLS Next added a bunch of smaller or less-successful clubs to their platform in Colorado, but very likely won't be enough for it to matter without Real Colorado and Colorado Rapids Youth not involved.

4. Colorado Rapids *Academy* and Colorado Rapids *Youth* are distinct organizations. Academy is part of the actual MLS Rapids organization and Rapids Youth just shares branding (maybe they will change their branding or be forced to?) but does not have any official connection to the MLS organization.

5. This decision by ECNL, Real Colorado, and Colorado Rapids Youth is a consolidation and likely will negatively affect all of the other clubs and the state association. These were probably the two big players in the state and they just built a moat around themselves. They may be 'rivals' on the pitch, but they seem to have viewed the smaller clubs and state associations as the greater foe here.

6. Colorado is likely a lag indicator and not a lead indicator. Places like Colorado and DC don't set the tone for youth soccer, only California and Texas really can, do, and will

7. Again, this was just a proxy war that doesn't really matter anyways. ECNL won this one, but loyalties are fickle.

You’re an idiot. ECNL put out announcement that an ECNL team stayed in ECNL

The boys teams were in MLSN the girls were ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your Q4 kid needs a BY to SY change to make the team he or she ain't that good

Your Q1 or Q2 kid probably isn’t that good and that was the reason for this post…I’m sorry your kid can’t keep playing against underclassmen….Q1&2 parents are about to be in for a very rude awakening…

Or, get even better from the new older kids they get to play against!

Historical statistics are not in your favor. There are usually 1 or 2 SepQ4 in the current NL team of 22 players. After the switch, most Q2 July-August players will gradually be eliminated from the top team.

Q3 parent here. Historical statistics are absolutely in favor of the kids that are on a team, being exposed to older stronger better teammates and competition, getting better stronger faster.

I get the narrative and wishful thinking. But in reality, where this change will show up is in the today’s u-littles 5 years from now. Historical statistics ACTUALLY illustrate that quite well.

You are confusing things. In terms of numbers, yes, this will affect the younger age categories a lot more.

Qualitatively, this will significantly advantage the few Sept-Q4 that are still playing elite / competitive soccer at 12, 13, 14, 15 years old.

My son is late December who was born a month early (he is a twin). He is one of the best 3-4 players on an RL team that only has one Q4 (my son). Most of the players on his current team are Q1, including several that were born the first half of January. He has been playing against many players that are effectively one year older than him. He is the second smallest player on his team, but one of the fastest players. The best technically, which he had to be to be able to compete.

They’ve played scrimmages against the younger RL team and he is significantly better than all of the players, especially those in his position (8, 10). He should not play with this team. The best option for him is the NL team.

I think he is the norm, not the exception, of Q4 players at his age and level.

Exact same story here. I've seen my son play the #1 team in the country for his grade level and he dominates them. Yet in his BY hes not quite good enough to overtake a kid a year older at his best position the 10.

Can't wait to move him down.

Ugh…wut?

You saw your son dominate at a GY / SY match? When and where? 🤣

And in your dreams, doesn’t count.

Not the poster of that comment but my daughters ECNL team ranked around 50-60 nationally scrimmages the team in the age below weekly who is nationally ranked around 10 nationally. My kid can play BY but is noticeably better when playing the age group below SY. Is December born and the parents can’t wait for her to go down.

I think people are going to be surprised when Q3 and 4 ECNL players show up at their tryout.