ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

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.

PP said it was much lower when SY. PP didn’t say it was higher “since the change.”

It WAS much lower when SY. The Aspen Report. Shows ALL youth sport has been dropping as a % of population. Youth soccer has hovered around 3 million for about 24/25 years. US soccer publishes these numbers every year you know…

[Anonymous]

Based on the skyrocketing costs to participate in Pay-to-Play youth soccer, bad coaching plus the toxic parents as seen on sidelines each weekend and in DCUM, a drop-off in participation and enrollment in kids soccer is no surprise.

[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.

No, the youth soccer participation rate is in decline, https://www.statista.com/statistics/982274/participation-kids-soccer/.
And the youth population is also in decline.

So overall there are fewer kids to go around for clubs to make teams and fewer teams for leagues like EDP and NCSL unless they take action to stem the tide.

Reverting to school year from birth year is expected to be an easy action to help stem the decline in at least the smallest way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the skyrocketing costs to participate in Pay-to-Play youth soccer, bad coaching plus the toxic parents as seen on sidelines each weekend and in DCUM, a drop-off in participation and enrollment in kids soccer is no surprise.

And birth year cutoffs! Don’t forget that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

The reason ECNL is pushing for SY so hard right now is because when NCAA blows up getting recruited to play sports will completly change.. if colleges can pay players to play college sports just becomes another pro league. Pro leagues have professional scouts that don't care if you're a trapped player or not. All they care about is performance. This is because they're paying you to perform.

Basically ECNL wants the change asap because if college sports become more professional they won't be able to make the change at that time.

[Anonymous]

Which is more reason to avoid going to SY if things are looking like it will become less about education and athletics.

[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.

Or ECNL makes deals with other leagues to not expand and steal their clubs for the next few years so they also go SY.

See, speculation without facts can be fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the skyrocketing costs to participate in Pay-to-Play youth soccer, bad coaching plus the toxic parents as seen on sidelines each weekend and in DCUM, a drop-off in participation and enrollment in kids soccer is no surprise.

And birth year cutoffs! Don’t forget that!

BY is real
SY is arbitrary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

PP said it was much lower when SY. PP didn’t say it was higher “since the change.”

It WAS much lower when SY. The Aspen Report. Shows ALL youth sport has been dropping as a % of population. Youth soccer has hovered around 3 million for about 24/25 years. US soccer publishes these numbers every year you know…

If A is less than B, B is greater than A. If the source was the Aspen reports, I've read them and don't agree at all with your interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Listen people, after all the years of saying the quality of college soccer sucks, colleges are now prioritizing International transfer players and players from MLS Clubs academies to up the levels

BY or SY isn't going to make a difference for your kid unless their game is exceptional. Especially coming from a lower league.

This thread is nutz

[Anonymous]

First and I hope only post on this topic.

I lived through this once with my son. He's a June birthday. He just started club soccer (U10 year) and the change was made. He was one of 3 kids that were left from his team to move on to U11. The rest fell into the BY cutoff for U12.
Some kids didn't make that site's U12 team, but were able to stay with the same club at a different site.

The following U11 year was a bit awkward, but it worked itself out by the end of the year. My son actually played with some of those kids that moved along to U12 his last club year as a HS senior since it was combined as 05/06.

My daughter is a January 09 and plays on a ECNL club. Her team has 1 2010 and one other truly trapped 2009 player. Last year, when their fall season finished, the girls that wanted to went and played HS. The club had a combined team that continued to practice and played against other ENCL Mid-Atlantic clubs with combined teams and some local boys teams. The two trapped girls did this primarily and kept them active until ENCL Playoffs.

If the go from truly birthyear to just moving the cutoff, so we will still have some RAE, in my opinion. If you go to strictly your SY (what grade are you in) you will get some kids that are held back - for example, coworkers daughter and my son graduated this past year. She was a full year plus older than my son. That's the type of stuff that you'll see more of in my opinion if it's truly based on SY (Grade) versus some sort of birthdate.

Plus, the whole uncertainty with the NCAA does make things messier for everyone, especially those in or beginning the recruiting cycle.

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah, forgot to add, interestingly enough, my daughter's ECNL team and the team a year ahead of her have quite a few players with August and later birthday's so there would be quite a bit of movement with players on her current team potentially dropping back and girls dropping from the current 08 squad to my daughter's team.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting about how trapped players still get field time even if their team goes into a sit out for HS soccer. Leagues have things in place to give trapped players opportunities, people then complain about that its more on recruiting than matches/training. There will always be some excuse for the change that affects a small population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for posting about how trapped players still get field time even if their team goes into a sit out for HS soccer. Leagues have things in place to give trapped players opportunities, people then complain about that its more on recruiting than matches/training. There will always be some excuse for the change that affects a small population.

Trapped is more a mentality otherwise no trapped player would make it to college ball

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

PP said it was much lower when SY. PP didn’t say it was higher “since the change.”

It WAS much lower when SY. The Aspen Report. Shows ALL youth sport has been dropping as a % of population. Youth soccer has hovered around 3 million for about 24/25 years. US soccer publishes these numbers every year you know…

If A is less than B, B is greater than A. If the source was the Aspen reports, I've read them and don't agree at all with your interpretation.

If B is a 60 year time horizon and A is an 8 year time horizon...nevermind, you're too caught up in "being right" to actually think.