ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or a national team, or a professional team.

It's a hereditary condition, passed on from parent to child, and it's awful. As DCUM often reminds people, comparison is the thief of joy, and trapped parents are robbing their children of joy with their mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

This is true, and its across all NCAA sports.

That said, the international kids are not super impressive. Colleges aren't pulling in the best, they're pulling in "the rest." But, that means the bottom third kids competing for mid-majors and below rosters are going to lose out big time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Or a national team, or a professional team.

It's a hereditary condition, passed on from parent to child, and it's awful. As DCUM often reminds people, comparison is the thief of joy, and trapped parents are robbing their children of joy with their mentality.

Congenital not hereditary, dependent on birth month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

This is true, and its across all NCAA sports.

That said, the international kids are not super impressive. Colleges aren't pulling in the best, they're pulling in "the rest." But, that means the bottom third kids competing for mid-majors and below rosters are going to lose out big time.

2nd and 3rd tier players from European academies who didn't make it to the highest Pro levels there are still far superior to most of what we're producing here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Not clear on where your question is coming from as it relates to RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

[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.

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.

Meanwhile, how many local ECNL teams have rosters of 20+?

There is always a level of drop off especially the pay to play aspect of club soccer. The reality is as kids get older their priorities change to other things, social, academic, jobs etc. Club sports just don't hold the attention of HS age kids. They are a time suck.

This has very little to do with a age cutoff but of kids simply maturing and choosing their interests.

[Anonymous]

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

When people talk about "not being able to play club soccer with my grade peers" with the language of "taking away my right to vote as a citizen," it kind of tells you where some club sport parents' heads are at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

It isn't pushback. Sorry your kid was trapped but if the cutoff changes it won't change the player that your kid is currently. It will make some things more convenient, but don't for a minute think that ECNL is doing this for your trapped player, they are doing it to help out College Coaches and make class recruiting a tad easier for THEM. It has nothing to do with your trapped player and her "struggles" or inconvenience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

It isn't pushback. Sorry your kid was trapped but if the cutoff changes it won't change the player that your kid is currently. It will make some things more convenient, but don't for a minute think that ECNL is doing this for your trapped player, they are doing it to help out College Coaches and make class recruiting a tad easier for THEM. It has nothing to do with your trapped player and her "struggles" or inconvenience.

You went on some unrelated tangents there but this whole thread is about RAE and I get the push from Q4, just surprised by the high level nervousness from Q1 parents. So then the debate should be how to address RAE more so than what cutoff to use. No?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're telling me that 40% of the players are trapped?

Good lord this is hilarious.

I don't want to hear any complaining when this goes through and your team is completely reshuffled and there still aren't any classmates on her team.

Jesus, club parents with rec soccer mentality. School classmates rarely end up on the same club teams together and they haven't since they were 8 years old.

If she wants to play sports with classmates and friends there is place for that, and it is called High School sports.

Club sports are not intended to be your social club outlet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Absolutes don't apply here. They are less likely.

And you think playing musical chairs with cutoffs is going to make a weak and average player all of a sudden exceptional?

Based on the weird pushback from parents of Q1 kids, I wasn't before your comment but am now.

It isn't pushback. Sorry your kid was trapped but if the cutoff changes it won't change the player that your kid is currently. It will make some things more convenient, but don't for a minute think that ECNL is doing this for your trapped player, they are doing it to help out College Coaches and make class recruiting a tad easier for THEM. It has nothing to do with your trapped player and her "struggles" or inconvenience.

You went on some unrelated tangents there but this whole thread is about RAE and I get the push from Q4, just surprised by the high level nervousness from Q1 parents. So then the debate should be how to address RAE more so than what cutoff to use. No?

Birth year wasn't intended to fix RAE as much as it was to make it more obvious.

RAE occurs at younger ages when a year of growth at 10 years old is significant in terms of development. By HS age the impact/damage has already been done.

There is always going to be Q1 because of arbitrary cutoffs.

I've gone through both age cutoffs and nothing changed other than the faces on the team. Kids were not magically better or worse players based on the switch. This is what folks are telling you.

I'm fine with making the switch but it should be phased in at younger ages and then just move forward from then on. There are kids currently playing who started off playing under school cutoffs to have it change to birth year. Enough of the yoyo.

Frankly, I'm just sick of the soccer overlords making these sweeping changes every other year more than I'm concerned with how it would impact my kid.

And when the kids are older and they are on a team they like only to have that broken up always sucks, yes, even if your kid is trapped.

[Anonymous]

Still trying to figure out the true impacts.

Regardless of what naysayers post, trap years stink for the 8th graders, both socially and developmentally. Will they find another team, yes, they will, but the level of competition will be significantly lower most likely (playing with lower level trapped kids) BUT not truly a huge issue in my opinion.

Junior year also does stink as well and is probably more of an issue for recruiting than most people would imagine. In my circle are three d1 coaches. They HATE split squads. Contrary to opinion above, most coaches dont go to one off games to watch a single kid. They go to top clubs in their area and to watch clubs where they have a preexisting relationship with the DOCs. And they have to bring a scorecard. Not saying they dont go to the one off game of a single individual they are interested in but that is not the norm. At all. Again, not an insurmountable issue but a PIA issue 100%

Senior year is a waste. Majority of team is gone. You are playing with a fairly established team of Juniors that may or may not take kindly to your presence.

Now, with all that said, who is really getting screwed over? It is 100% RAE issue. That really good younger that cant make the older ECNL team but would be middle of the pack on the year younger ECNL team. BUT it would be the exact same issue if they changed. Then it would be the lower level older who would potentially get bumped from the top team to the B team when the youngers from the above team moved down.

Now, in terms of pure fairness, if you are talking about recruiting, it seems MUCH more likely for a kid that is a very good younger (not exceptional) to be "overlooked" by being on the B team whereby they would be on the A team with grad year. The older kid that gets pushed down, relative to their school peer group, and by extension, recruiting, probably isn't that good to begin with and was given an outsized benefit by being older.

I dont really care one way or the other as my kids are Jan, June and Nov.