ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Did we just get several pages today rehashing RAE again? You guys have the end goal in mind, 1000 to the moon!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:U10 coach at a club with MLSNext. No confirmation on MLSNext age cutoff for ‘26 but the assumption is they will go 9/1. My fear is if they don’t, I will be bombarded with even more questions from parents…

Ok "coach" u10 MLSN guy

[Anonymous]

8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a grassroots campaign.

Call it SY+60, GY-Cheaters, BY+180, SY with a 2 month verified waiver, etc etc etc. It's all the same

SY with a single 9/1 cutoff doesn't address all trapped players. Which was the reason for switching from BY to SY. This means there will continue to be problems and parents + clubs complaining.

It isn't SY 9/1 with a single cutoff. US Soccer is also allowing leagues 8/1 or 1-1 or 9/1. If DCUM has taught anything, it is that their will always be complaining and expecting a perfect solution is unrealistic. Rule making bodies lean towards simplicity over complexity, so straight 12 month periods, sans exceptions begins Fall 2026.

Leagues can do a 9/1 cutoff with a 2 month 7/1-9/1 exemption with verification. Just because US Soccer said leagues have 3 choices doesn't mean everything is written in stone.

You have to take a step back and look at why ECNL wanted to change back to SY. They felt it was in their best interests to make things as easy as possible for college recruiting. Great, fine, to do this you need to get rid of all trapped players. If you dont do it now this issue will come up later. If another league (maybe GA) implements rules to accommodate ALL trapped players ECNL will be forced to follow. Might as well fix it all now.

Ok, GY it is then

GY is fine just make sure the regrades and cheaters can't participate.

No, GY is based on grade in school, holdbacks and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a grassroots campaign.

Call it SY+60, GY-Cheaters, BY+180, SY with a 2 month verified waiver, etc etc etc. It's all the same

SY with a single 9/1 cutoff doesn't address all trapped players. Which was the reason for switching from BY to SY. This means there will continue to be problems and parents + clubs complaining.

It isn't SY 9/1 with a single cutoff. US Soccer is also allowing leagues 8/1 or 1-1 or 9/1. If DCUM has taught anything, it is that their will always be complaining and expecting a perfect solution is unrealistic. Rule making bodies lean towards simplicity over complexity, so straight 12 month periods, sans exceptions begins Fall 2026.

Leagues can do a 9/1 cutoff with a 2 month 7/1-9/1 exemption with verification. Just because US Soccer said leagues have 3 choices doesn't mean everything is written in stone.

You have to take a step back and look at why ECNL wanted to change back to SY. They felt it was in their best interests to make things as easy as possible for college recruiting. Great, fine, to do this you need to get rid of all trapped players. If you dont do it now this issue will come up later. If another league (maybe GA) implements rules to accommodate ALL trapped players ECNL will be forced to follow. Might as well fix it all now.

Ok, GY it is then

GY is fine just make sure the regrades and cheaters can't participate.

No, GY is based on grade in school, holdbacks and all.

Adding that is why it will be 9-2 and not GY for Fall 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

Agree could get behind SY+30.

[Anonymous]

MLSN and ECNL just confirmed SY+270

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did we just get several pages today rehashing RAE again? You guys have the end goal in mind, 1000 to the moon!

The entire thrust of this thread is essentially all about RAE. Some choose to ignore, some want to solve it, some embrace. Basically it is an unavoidable factor that can influence a player’s development, particularly through u15 or so. Does it mean everything? Absolutely not! The interesting unknown, however, is if you mix cutoffs within the ecosystem for these top tier leagues, how does that impact participation/dropout at u13, as well as quality of the talent pool for the top tier leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not a grassroots campaign.

Call it SY+60, GY-Cheaters, BY+180, SY with a 2 month verified waiver, etc etc etc. It's all the same

SY with a single 9/1 cutoff doesn't address all trapped players. Which was the reason for switching from BY to SY. This means there will continue to be problems and parents + clubs complaining.

It isn't SY 9/1 with a single cutoff. US Soccer is also allowing leagues 8/1 or 1-1 or 9/1. If DCUM has taught anything, it is that their will always be complaining and expecting a perfect solution is unrealistic. Rule making bodies lean towards simplicity over complexity, so straight 12 month periods, sans exceptions begins Fall 2026.

Leagues can do a 9/1 cutoff with a 2 month 7/1-9/1 exemption with verification. Just because US Soccer said leagues have 3 choices doesn't mean everything is written in stone.

You have to take a step back and look at why ECNL wanted to change back to SY. They felt it was in their best interests to make things as easy as possible for college recruiting. Great, fine, to do this you need to get rid of all trapped players. If you dont do it now this issue will come up later. If another league (maybe GA) implements rules to accommodate ALL trapped players ECNL will be forced to follow. Might as well fix it all now.

Ok, GY it is then

GY is fine just make sure the regrades and cheaters can't participate.

No, GY is based on grade in school, holdbacks and all.

Adding that is why it will be 9-2 and not GY for Fall 2026.

Or ever, cheaters gonna cheat.

[Anonymous]

Gretchen, stop trying to make SY+60 happen! It’s not going to happen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

Agree could get behind SY+30.

Hawaii has a 7/31 cutoff date. So +30 kind of works.

You have to keep in mind the +30 or +60 qualifier is a birth cert and documentation showing grade in school.

It's not like every kid who was born 1 or 2 months before 9/1 qualifies. They have to be in the correct grade as well. 99% of the time this will occur because XYZ state cutoff date was before 9/1. Basically it wasn't the kids fault that their states policy was to start school before 9/1.

[Anonymous]

Waste of time…..

Enjoy SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLSN and ECNL just confirmed SY+270

Why does MLSN want to stay BY again? MLSN2 allows high school right? I would have thought SY lined up well there. Plus, MLS ‘futures’ are supposed to get called up to MLSN1 at times. So are the futures only going to be certain kids that align with BY cutoffs? Can’t imagine offering a product that only some kids on the SAME TEAM can utilize, not because of their skill, but because of their birth month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN and ECNL just confirmed SY+270

Why does MLSN want to stay BY again? MLSN2 allows high school right? I would have thought SY lined up well there. Plus, MLS ‘futures’ are supposed to get called up to MLSN1 at times. So are the futures only going to be certain kids that align with BY cutoffs? Can’t imagine offering a product that only some kids on the SAME TEAM can utilize, not because of their skill, but because of their birth month.

It's because MLS Acadamies compete with international Acadamies when it comes to developing and selling off players. This is different world than the college pipeline.

The difficult thing for US parents to grasp is that Acadamies produce a higher level of player than p2p leagues like ECNL. What this translates to is colleges prefer recruiting from Academy teams both foreign and domestic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8/1 seems okay but 7/1 is pushing with the age gap.

Agree could get behind SY+30.

Hawaii has a 7/31 cutoff date. So +30 kind of works.

You have to keep in mind the +30 or +60 qualifier is a birth cert and documentation showing grade in school.

It's not like every kid who was born 1 or 2 months before 9/1 qualifies. They have to be in the correct grade as well. 99% of the time this will occur because XYZ state cutoff date was before 9/1. Basically it wasn't the kids fault that their states policy was to start school before 9/1.

It’s the balance of accommodating grade exception vs extending RAE potential. I know that is a dirty word around here but it’s true. Extra documentation needed and potential for abuse are other reasons too.