ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GY will not happen. At best, you’ll get SY with some flexibility for Aug and maybe July kids.

ECNL is going to allow GY at upper age brackets (within certain guidelines). So maybe u16+. It is a done deal. I don't particularly like it but it is a compromise they had to do to prevent some seniors from not having a club team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

No

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

Yup, SY while trying to save face and pretend like being a leader when everyone else broke off and said pound sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

No

Yes

Maybe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GY will not happen. At best, you’ll get SY with some flexibility for Aug and maybe July kids.

ECNL is going to allow GY at upper age brackets (within certain guidelines). So maybe u16+. It is a done deal. I don't particularly like it but it is a compromise they had to do to prevent some seniors from not having a club team.

Why do you say it is a done deal?

And what do you mean, exactly? My boy is going to be U16 next season, but he is late December. Does that mean he would be playing U15 instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That wouldn’t be biobanding 😂

MLSN currently only allows late developers to drop one year so the PP is suggesting that it would be limited to Sept -Dec. Considering MLSN has no real policing or criteria for what constitutes what a late developer is and allows biobanding for multiple years and beyond U15, based on comments from other posters, then the Sept-Dec definition would just as good as the current "late developers" rule in defining biobanding.

Yea…none of what you said is accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

No

Yes

It’s not, no matter how glibly you claim it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

The SY people are starting to see how annoying the GY people are. GY want to cheat and dont care about the ethics behind it.

This is what the BY people were trying to warn you about.

Changing from BY to SY is a slippery slope if you're not careful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think mlsnext stays “BY” but allows some number of boys to bioband that is based on sept-dec birthdate or GY and has nothing to do with size.

That’s basically just SY then. I mean, calling it BY but allowing Sept-Dec kids to play down a year is just SY with a different name.

No

Yes

It’s not, no matter how glibly you claim it to be.

It is. You simply don't understand basic logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GY will not happen. At best, you’ll get SY with some flexibility for Aug and maybe July kids.

ECNL is going to allow GY at upper age brackets (within certain guidelines). So maybe u16+. It is a done deal. I don't particularly like it but it is a compromise they had to do to prevent some seniors from not having a club team.

Why do you say it is a done deal?

And what do you mean, exactly? My boy is going to be U16 next season, but he is late December. Does that mean he would be playing U15 instead?

For 26/27. Nothing is being changed for 25/26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are not going to hold back their kids for soccer to the point that it would be an issue. Most elite players play up and do not need or want to play down an age group.

GY to me makes sense because it simplifies teams and keeps kid in the same group as their grade. Also if a kid was held back they should be allowed to play sports while they are in high school.

There are plenty of shenanigans with players being held back in basketball... So its not like it can't happen, there are plenty of examples out there.

What do you mean by plenty? 1 kid per team, 2 kids per team, 1 kid per 5 teams? That would still be between 1-10% of players? The majority will not hold back kids for sports especially on the girls side. I would be willing to bet the girls side has more kids who started early than started late.

If there are so few then a strict SY cutoff should be fine then. Sounds good to me.

You could make the argument both ways. One just aligns all kids with their school grade. If players are great they do not fear competition if there are some holdbacks let the kids get their boots on and compete.

This sounds like the same thing BY people are saying why they don’t want SY kids. Let the sept/dec kids put their boots on and compete.
Just still with strict date like it has always been!

To prove your pint, a family friend has a kid that is a five star football player, probably top 2-3 QB in the 2026 recruiting class. He was held back a year so that he could be this super star. The year he was held back, he wasn’t even top 200.

So many stories like that. Especially boys sports where a year can make such a huge difference.

The problem with holdbacks is once one parent does it with their kid and is successful because of it others will do the same. Also the of age players get their opportunity taken away from them by an older kid who's playing down.

As an example take the GY person that keeps posting an unsubstantiated lie about ECNL moving to GY for olders showcases. How would you feel about it after spending 2-3k to attend some showcase. If a kid a year older started over you kid in front of scouts? See how stupid this is?

Exactly, I dont understand how that would even work. We're going to allow players in prime recruiting ages get pushed to the side by players a year older who've already had a year of playing in front of scouts at events?

For what wins? It's an olders showcase nobody cares. The only situation where this might make sense is if players have already signed commitments and dont care about playing their senior year.