ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How does the age cutoff impact selling academy players? A young academy player that has the ability to be sold to a European club is likely playing up and playing up multiple age groups. And unless they have duel citizenship, they aren’t going to an European club until 18. Academy players staying in the US are signing homegrown contracts at 15/16 years old and then playing on the first/second team which have no age groups. The u18 age group plays mlsnext u19 and that group is allowed some overage players. The age group a player plays in the academy system is much more fluid than at a mlsnext p2p club.

[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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

[Anonymous]

https://airtable.com/appIuBuVdCyfRB5y5/shrNdP6xMja704gXm

Want to ask questions for the ECNL podcast. Here is the link.

[Anonymous]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbhMm4dmA0

ECNL coach talking about age change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The RAE cultists are annoying

What’s RAE means?

rae = relative age effect

It's a convenient excuse for parents looking for excuses.

This folks is why we are almost to 1000 pages.

I agree rae is like a super excuse that can be used for anyhting.

This is the issue with rae. If you're the type looking for a way to make yourself a victim rae is just too easy.

Most BY crazies hate when RAE is brought up because it challenges their belief that their Q1/2 kid is amazing when actually their kid is just older and an upperclassman….then when their kid is 16-18 they wonder where all the potential went….they’ll ignore that the answer is RAE and they’ll ignore the research because it goes against what they want to believe.

BY crazies don't exist. It's only a straw man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

[Anonymous]

We should do six-month teams until 11v11.

[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.

Agree this would be a problem. But also the selling point of mlsn2 is they train along with mlsn1. How does that work if one is u13 and the other is 2012s? A nightmare for coaches to manage; and will be all the parents talk about. We need to focus on development of players, an ongoing hyperfixation on birth month will be very distracting and turn people off from the sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree this would be a problem. But also the selling point of mlsn2 is they train along with mlsn1. How does that work if one is u13 and the other is 2012s? A nightmare for coaches to manage; and will be all the parents talk about. We need to focus on development of players, an ongoing hyperfixation on birth month will be very distracting and turn people off from the sport.

That's ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

[Anonymous]

1000 in no time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree this would be a problem. But also the selling point of mlsn2 is they train along with mlsn1. How does that work if one is u13 and the other is 2012s? A nightmare for coaches to manage; and will be all the parents talk about. We need to focus on development of players, an ongoing hyperfixation on birth month will be very distracting and turn people off from the sport.

That's ridiculous

Tell that to a coach who has to constantly communicate to kids and their parents who can and cannot play up or down each season depending if they are mlsn1 or mlsn2 and what their birth month is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

Sorry, my kid is a September baby.

But she'll most likely stay with her current team no matter what decision is made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

Sorry, my kid is a September baby.

But she'll most likely stay with her current team no matter what decision is made.

Sureeeee….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Get ready for SY 9-1. Powers that be didn't think it was worth 8-1 for a the small percent of kids born in August caught up in Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana representing a very small fraction of the population so they aren't making special consideration for kids born in July and August held back in the other states. RIP Sy60, a never was.

I realize that you like bandwagoning on whichever side of an arguement is most likely to win. Good for you.

It doesn't change that fact that with a single 9/1 cutoff there will still be trapped players. And those players and clubs from states affected will continue to have issues with SY. The issues over time will become problems.

I think it will only be a problem for you.

Sorry, my kid is a September baby.

But she'll most likely stay with her current team no matter what decision is made.

Sureeeee….

Ok, but its 100% true.

Been doing the youth soccer thing for too long + I've likely seen it all going all the way back to the DA days.