ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

Frankly we should do it, because at the end of the day, all the best players play up anyway.

Kids don’t want exceptions made for them, especially due to age. Playing down signals to them and everyone else they are not good enough to play in their designated age group.

Except when they play with their grade -- which they would do anyway in HS. I think a good compromise should be do GY for the mid-to-lower leagues and only enforce a strict 12-month rule for top leagues, like MLSN, GA, ECNL. AND/OR have the u-littles with SY but also 6-month teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

[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.

If ECNL and MLSNext do not align with the pipeline, it will be an unholy mess for sure.

[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.

If ECNL and MLSNext do not align with the pipeline, it will be an unholy mess for sure.

Thats pretty much guaranteed at this point. Open questions are GA and MLN2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Didn’t know that, going rogue will be a risky business decision for sure.



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.

If ECNL and MLSNext do not align with the pipeline, it will be an unholy mess for sure.

Thats pretty much guaranteed at this point. Open questions are GA and MLN2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If ECNL and MLSNext do not align with the pipeline, it will be an unholy mess for sure.

Thats pretty much guaranteed at this point. Open questions are GA and MLN2.

Didn’t know that, going rogue will be a risky business decision for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

This insane lobbying campaign by one individual for exceptions is the reason we need strict rules. No exceptions. If you want GY, play school soccer.

[Anonymous]

+ is the worse than current system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+ is the worse than current system.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

This insane lobbying campaign by one individual for exceptions is the reason we need strict rules. No exceptions. If you want GY, play school soccer.

Why is it such a bad idea? The + system is a strict rule with clear guidelines. You just don’t like or understand the purpose of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

This insane lobbying campaign by one individual for exceptions is the reason we need strict rules. No exceptions. If you want GY, play school soccer.

Why is it such a bad idea? The + system is a strict rule with clear guidelines. You just don’t like or understand the purpose of them.

DOA without the arrival part. See push back above for why it is untenable and a bad idea.

It is unclear why you are unwilling to accept that others don't agree with you.

You suggesting cars should run on water and shocked and confused why others aren't as gullible as you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

Honestly, there WILL be exceptions, just not as broad as the SY+60 (Biobanding)... Also, BY wasn't a Dumpster fire that people here make it out to be. Trapped players HAD a cohort. Some trapped leagues WERE better than playing as a freshmen in HS. Kids who were clearly better played on 10-month teams. SY will disadvantage the youngest just the same but align most kids with their grade. Marginally better, unless your kids are now among the youngest (but even that isn't a deal-breaker -- the best still will rise and those who love it and just OK will stick it out... It's only a problem if the kid really isn't as interested in soccer as their over-eager parent!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve taken last few weeks off from this thread. Still safe to assume hard 9/1 cutoff for ECNL in 26-27? All the +60 stuff still dead in the water?

Yes. Everything is 9/1 there is no person in any official position who has ever mentioned even looking and the + ideas.

The + ideas are parents that are trying to snow plow for kids who are NFL (Not for Long) for their current teams. Less than 6 months to go before this gets really spicy.

+ ideas are good ideas. You just don’t understand.

Not good, not going to happen.

Exceptions for held back kids to make them the oldest and other garbage waivers that others promote have myopic views that don't take into account that for every kid who benefits other kids bare the cost. Again, this junk talk is why 12 months of discussions behind closed doors lead to just 3 12 months period choices. The rules were set last November. It's over.

It's like saying everyone in the country should send me a penny. They won't notice the cost and I will be rich and if you are against this plan you are a selfish jerk.

It’s not an exception whose purpose is to make them the oldest. That’s just an unintended consequence of establishing an age cutoff that accomplishes what the vast majority of people want - and that is to align kids by their school year. I hate to break it to you, but even with a strict 12 month cutoff, there will be kids that are almost a year old. And guess what? They all do just fine. And you know what happens when they get to high school and possibly even college? That’s right - they play with kids much older than them. The only thing that is myopic is the rigidity of an arbitrary cutoff that doesn’t even accomplish what it is setting out to accomplish.

Then press for GY. Ignoring all of the unintended consequences is what unravels the extra special scheme when put under a microscope. The lacrosse parents were dead set against the 14 month window with its unintended consequences. Of course they were.

The unintended consequences are not being ignored. You guard against it the best you can by things like having a 60 day window and limiting how many kids outside the 12 month cutoff can be on a given team.

It’s the unintended consequences of the strict BY rule that got us in this mess to begin with. If you don’t try and address all problems the age cutoff creates, then you’ll be in the same spot down the road. Being creative and thinking outside the box is a good thing. If the tradeoff for aligning as many kids as possible in the same school year is that maybe Johnny and Jane have to play a kid who is 13 months older than them (ignoring that if that older kid is that much better they’ll be playing up anyway, then the very few times that will happen is a good tradeoff.

This insane lobbying campaign by one individual for exceptions is the reason we need strict rules. No exceptions. If you want GY, play school soccer.

Why is it such a bad idea? The + system is a strict rule with clear guidelines. You just don’t like or understand the purpose of them.

Give it a rest already with the exceptions lobbying. Your July/aug kid you are fighting so hard for will just have to play within their 12 month designated window like everyone else. Guess what? they will be better off for it playing against RAE they will develop better and be a stronger player when they play club in college, which is the best kids can hope for these days. This thread is probably the same 3 people going back and forth. Nothing more to see here.