ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

I was hoping it would leak pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

Board meeting was Wednesday. Announcement will be by the end of the month or at their annual meeting in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

Board meeting was Wednesday. Announcement will be by the end of the month or at their annual meeting in June.

Thanks for the info!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

Board meeting was Wednesday. Announcement will be by the end of the month or at their annual meeting in June.

Well that explains all the posts about SY+60 and that trapped players still exist under SY.

Also explains all the posts pushing for a single date cutoff.

My money is on the SY and some form of defined exemption to address trapped players person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the GA announcement will give any clue as to what mlsnext will do? I assume if GA stays BY, mlsnext is likely to do the same.

There will not be an announcement. GA is only letting its club directors know.

Board meeting was Wednesday. Announcement will be by the end of the month or at their annual meeting in June.

Well that explains all the posts about SY+60 and that trapped players still exist under SY.

Also explains all the posts pushing for a single date cutoff.

My money is on the SY and some form of defined exemption to address trapped players person.

At a minimum, it looks like they're giving it a lot of thought. Might be worth getting out in front with a detailed plan and then having the other leagues react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

No, there should be 6-month teams. It could work. There are enough players (and it can be grade-based). ODP is doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

No, there should be 6-month teams. It could work. There are enough players (and it can be grade-based). ODP is doing it.

6 month teams I’m talking about 1 month teams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

No, there should be 6-month teams. It could work. There are enough players (and it can be grade-based). ODP is doing it.

6 month teams I’m talking about 1 month teams

Not enough players. Wouldn't work. Sorry. Not practical. 6-month, OTOH (it could even incorporate some +30 to make others happy!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

No, there should be 6-month teams. It could work. There are enough players (and it can be grade-based). ODP is doing it.

6 month teams I’m talking about 1 month teams

Not enough players. Wouldn't work. Sorry. Not practical. 6-month, OTOH (it could even incorporate some +30 to make others happy!)

The more I think about this the more interesting it becomes. Both 6 month groups would in the same grade in school if one was +60. The "better" team would be 100% dependent on birthdate.

Would the 2 teams play in separate leagues or the same league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is too complicated, wouldn’t it be easier and more concise if the just grouped all kids by the year they were born?

We should just let all the kids play by same month and year they were born.

Nov 2011 only play other Nov 2011s

No, there should be 6-month teams. It could work. There are enough players (and it can be grade-based). ODP is doing it.

6 month teams I’m talking about 1 month teams

Not enough players. Wouldn't work. Sorry. Not practical. 6-month, OTOH (it could even incorporate some +30 to make others happy!)

The more I think about this the more interesting it becomes. Both 6 month groups would in the same grade in school if one was +60. The "better" team would be 100% dependent on birthdate.

Would the 2 teams play in separate leagues or the same league?

This would also negate the need for a 2nd team because there would in essence be 2 top teams per age group at each club. This translates into more $$$ for thr clubs.

[Anonymous]

Can’t wait to hear direction from the leagues because some of these idea are crazy. Just need to realize it is going to be 12 month from 9/1 to 8/31. Start getting comfortable with that or next year is going to be terrible for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait to hear direction from the leagues because some of these idea are crazy. Just need to realize it is going to be 12 month from 9/1 to 8/31. Start getting comfortable with that or next year is going to be terrible for you.

Thank you for your feedback.

But I'll wait for the official announcement.