Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Sounds like the first bit of real information in the past 200 pages! |
Anonymous
MLS1 will align with MLS2. No compelling reason to stay in BY alone, except pleasing the BY crowd. Only the MLS Academy will remain in BY. |
Anonymous
| Yeah how could MLSN1 and 2 have different age alignments when they would be playing in the same showcases. |
Anonymous
No they won't. |
Anonymous
Yah, MLS1 will do what BY crowds pray for to stay in BY to save those mediocre Q1/Q2. |
Anonymous
| Changing from two different age cutoffs at u13 also creates a bigger problem: it resets the RAE bias, which, in turn, would cause a fight or flight situation for many kids (and their parents) with some of the better kids being bumped down to second teams for more physically mature kids. From a Darwinian perspective this may sound enticing, however the risk is some of those top kids (and their parents) leave soccer for a different sport. By changing the RAE, you also lose all the inherent benefits of RAE to that point built up from u6 to u12, where the top kids (in part due to their relative physical maturity) received the better coaching and competition. The net effect is a potentially weaker and smaller pool of players from u13 on for these clubs. |
Anonymous
If you’re gonna have RAE, embrace it. |
Anonymous
| We need to increase participation enough where you can have age groups broken down into sixth-month increments. |
Anonymous
They won’t leave soccer, they will go to ecnl if it’s a close enough option, just what MLSnext wants! |
Anonymous
We already have this in Texas. |
Anonymous
In Texas we have more than enough participation to do this. This will cause clubs and coaches to focus more on technical ability than physical development. The reason we are so bad at developing talent is we reward (temporary) physical superiority over technical superiority, so over time the technically superior but smaller players are more likely to drop soccer altogether. Many times these “physically inferior” players were just late developers. So, the “top” kids at 12, 13, 14, 15 are no longer physically superior at 17, 18 years old. By then, they’re physically normal and technically average, which makes them, well, average. These players are still playing at top academies and their technically superior colleagues are now physically fine but completely out of the sport. Congrats to our system. You evaluate and recruit soccer kids like they were American football players. This is why a country with the highest number of youth players in the world ends up being mediocre at the senior level. The reason is not that our “athletes” are in other sports. It’s that we think soccer is primarily about athleticism, when in reality is it fundamentally about mastering the ball and knowing how to play. |
Anonymous
Its even worse on the girls side. With boys puberty can lead to justification. But with girls coaches fawn over the mutants that are 5'10"ish and make 5'4" players earn everything. In the end everything that is supposed to work out does. It's just hard to watch certain players get advantages just because of physical aspects. |
Anonymous
By the way, there isn’t much difference in levels, at least in the top half of each RL league. A team that won the “lower” level RL last year moved up to the “higher” level RL will probably finish second by only a few points. |
Anonymous
I don’t understand your point. MLS Academy and MLS p2p clubs play the same league: MLSN1. If MLSN1 and MLSN2 go SY, how could MLS Academy remain BY? |
Anonymous
MLS academies can do whatever they want but I don’t see the upside in this scenario. England academies make it work to play internationally. Maybe to funnel kids to the YNT? |