ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Have a Nov bday on an NL team, she is grade appropriate, started school early - I wonder if they will move her down or let her play with her grade. Benefits of being on the younger team as she will stand out more, but it causes recruiting issues as she will be a grade above her team.

[Anonymous]

No one faults the February born kid on a first team who older than everyone they play when they accept all the accolades at tournaments and ID camps.

Why would anyone want there kids to be at a permanent disadvantage because of age.

Ready to move my kid yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a Nov bday on an NL team, she is grade appropriate, started school early - I wonder if they will move her down or let her play with her grade. Benefits of being on the younger team as she will stand out more, but it causes recruiting issues as she will be a grade above her team.

More than likely she will be placed within the new age group team. But there will be some issues with college showcases where kids are not in the right school grade. That’s something families will have to navigate themselves most likely.

Unless ECNL decides to go with grad year showcases like some have speculated but I would say that is highly unlikely.

[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

Actually... both Real Colorado and Colorado Rapids Youth have had MLS Next teams on the boys' side. That ends in a few weeks when their boys MLS Next teams play their last games of the season. Their top boys' teams played MLS Next and their second teams' played ECNL.

Think about it again... ECNL isn't putting out a press release and putting it on the front page of the website if it was a generic announcements that ECNL clubs are staying with ECNL.

[Anonymous]

I'll drop my hat in here. This pertains to top level National League teams.

I have a daughter 2010 playing for an ECNL Academy here on the east coast. She's a 2010 ( Q3 - though I don't think that matters much ) (playing with mostly 9th graders), but she is an 8th grader. So, this "could" affect her. If the club decides to be rigid here, she would switch rosters and play with those who are mostly 2011's ( again 8th graders - the class of 2029).

My daughter is a very strong player on her team currently. That team isn't strong, but the current 2011's ( 8th graders are excellent - and a top 15 team).

What would the club do? ( sometimes they play her with the 2009's and the 2008's )

1. Slide her to the 8th grade team ( 2029's)- making them even stronger?

2. Keep her on the 2029's but only for showcases. She'll just play league games with whomever needs her and continue to develop her?

3. Keep her current team mostly intact - playing with the 2029s for showcases and nationals only?


This situation is a bt different that many posting here, as she's not a regular player, nor a bubble player.


This is where i get to speculate.

If your club is respectable and does things correctly. It's likely that strong players will continue to train up and play up. They will showcase with their "base" team only when it's scouting/recruiting time.

Wins only really matter if a team is "national's" worthy. So the best teams will get the best players, and the regular teams will get most of their base players. Again, I'm speculating that this will be the approach.

I also think that coaches are making decisions now for the eventual change over in 26-27. ( or at least they should be- padding rosters of players who could straddle the line, or say projecting a deficit or overabundance of a singular position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a Nov bday on an NL team, she is grade appropriate, started school early - I wonder if they will move her down or let her play with her grade. Benefits of being on the younger team as she will stand out more, but it causes recruiting issues as she will be a grade above her team.

I think it probably depends on how she competes physically. There will be players that are 14 months older than her. I don’t know how relevant this is for girls, but a 14 months age difference for boys at 13, 14, 15 is very significant.

My boy is late December. He would be playing against boys 16-17 months older than him.

[Anonymous]

The effective RAE delta for my September born kid will be 20 months. In the 7 years since he started playing at a top club he’s had 3 teammates that were younger than him. And almost no players in his league are younger.

Next season he might see one or two kids for the whole season born before him.

The difference between playing kids 10-20 months younger is gigantic. We will start looking for new teams in December.

The delta is what matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The boys were in ECNL Mountain. You’re confusing the academy with the club.

[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.

Is this a joke? What is your measurement of "better"?

The USMNT sucks. Lol. They lost to Panama. Panama has roughly the same population as the state of Kentucky. Delusional thinking.

[Anonymous]

Awesome…. F’in Kentucky.

Everyone at us soccer should be fired yesterday.

[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.

Is this a joke? What is your measurement of "better"?

The USMNT sucks. Lol. They lost to Panama. Panama has roughly the same population as the state of Kentucky. Delusional thinking.

Jamaica scored on them twice, and the USMNT also lost to Canada. The US is just... Not good. Could make the argument they're not even demonstrably better than the Alexi Lalas team in the 94 world cup.

BY/SY changes won't solve this.

[Anonymous]

Change the leadership

[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 two are talking about different things. The previous op said, based on historical statistics, that most of Q2/Q3 will be eliminated from the top team after the switch. You are arguing that the surviving younger player will be better after the switch. Of course, my surviving Dec. kid will totally dominate the No. 1 ECNL younger team after years literally playing up in the top team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a Nov bday on an NL team, she is grade appropriate, started school early - I wonder if they will move her down or let her play with her grade. Benefits of being on the younger team as she will stand out more, but it causes recruiting issues as she will be a grade above her team.

I think it probably depends on how she competes physically. There will be players that are 14 months older than her. I don’t know how relevant this is for girls, but a 14 months age difference for boys at 13, 14, 15 is very significant.

My boy is late December. He would be playing against boys 16-17 months older than him.

Perhaps significant but perhaps also not so uncommon. Playing kids 16-17 months older and (sometimes 36 months) happens all the time in HS. Sometimes its earned/sometimes it's because they need you (The good/bad of HS).

[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 two are talking about different things. The previous op said, based on historical statistics, that most of Q2/Q3 will be eliminated from the top team after the switch. You are arguing that the surviving younger player will be better after the switch. Of course, my surviving Dec. kid will totally dominate the No. 1 ECNL younger team after years literally playing up in the top team.

Depends on the club and age groups.