ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY: us club, us youth, ayso (includes ecnl)

Likely SY: GA, mlsnext 2

Undecided: mlsnext

BY: ODP

Is this where we are at?

mlsnext will be SY

I don’t see why MLSN has to change to SY if they already use biobanding? They basically have the autonomy to do whatever they want.

Saying that they could also easily switch to new cutoffs and continue to use biobanding so essentially it would just be let’s say 9/1 in name only?

[Anonymous]

GA is SY. It was decided by the board last week and announced in the coming days. Yep, I’m the “random poster”

[Anonymous]

Directly from ECNL

“We will follow whatever US Club Soccer decides to do as they are our governing body who manages player registrations.”

[Anonymous]

997 pages. Geez. What the panic is about? 3 pages more to 1000. Let us go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY: us club, us youth, ayso (includes ecnl)

Likely SY: GA, mlsnext 2

Undecided: mlsnext

BY: ODP

Is this where we are at?

mlsnext will be SY

I don’t see why MLSN has to change to SY if they already use biobanding? They basically have the autonomy to do whatever they want.

Saying that they could also easily switch to new cutoffs and continue to use biobanding so essentially it would just be let’s say 9/1 in name only?

Why would a club bioband 1/3 of its players by default every year ? Biobanding is a completely different concept and application with specific criteria. Clubs need to have all their kids in a proper registration system for many reasons. If MLSNext 2 does not go school year it would severely limit their matches and tournament options and creates more discord with HS and trapped players. And if Next tier 1 has a different age cutoff than tier 2 you are not creating a pathway for players to move up and down. Parents are paying big money and they won’t go for that either. Even tier 1 parents will start crying once their kid goes down to tier 2 on any given season.

[Anonymous]

Many clubs will have 1st team at MLSN1 and 2nd team at MLSN2.

It’s impossible for those clubs to have two different age cutoffs.

If MLSN2 goes SY then MLSN1 must be also SY.

If MLSN1 remains BY then MLSN2 must be also BY.

Otherwise it would be chaos for clubs participating at MLSN Next.

[Anonymous]

Academies are a small chunk of MLS Next.

P2P clubs are the main source of players for Tier1. And 100% for Tier2.

P2P clubs will have all teams (up to U12) being SY, because they will be playing USCS NPL, USYS, AYSO … (all are SY).

I see difficult for them to manage a gap between U12 (SY) and U13 (BY).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BY is DOA. If anyone really thinks it’s sticking around, you’re delusional.

ODP is keeping it apparently.

Source?

https://www.calnorth.org/news/important-update-cal-north-shifts-to-seasonal-year-age-groups-in-2026-2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Directly from ECNL

“We will follow whatever US Club Soccer decides to do as they are our governing body who manages player registrations.”

Sounds like they are going 9/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SY: us club, us youth, ayso (includes ecnl)

Likely SY: GA, mlsnext 2

Undecided: mlsnext

BY: ODP

Is this where we are at?

mlsnext will be SY

I don’t see why MLSN has to change to SY if they already use biobanding? They basically have the autonomy to do whatever they want.

Saying that they could also easily switch to new cutoffs and continue to use biobanding so essentially it would just be let’s say 9/1 in name only?

Why would a club bioband 1/3 of its players by default every year ? Biobanding is a completely different concept and application with specific criteria. Clubs need to have all their kids in a proper registration system for many reasons. If MLSNext 2 does not go school year it would severely limit their matches and tournament options and creates more discord with HS and trapped players. And if Next tier 1 has a different age cutoff than tier 2 you are not creating a pathway for players to move up and down. Parents are paying big money and they won’t go for that either. Even tier 1 parents will start crying once their kid goes down to tier 2 on any given season.

I’m not saying to bioband 1/3 of their players just pointing out they do not adhere to the strict cut offs like 1/1 or 9/1 they have flexibility to move players however they like so a strict cut off shouldn’t matter that much one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

What the hell are you even talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ODP does 2, 6-month teams, now.

ODP only does this because it allows a single coach (and assistant) to manage more players. Which means more $$$ for ODP.

ODP doesn’t serve the same purpose anymore. There’s no
Way clubs would adopt the same 6 month teams. That’s why my kid turned down ODP…friends all playing the older age group.

[Anonymous]

ODP? Do top players still participate in that program? Seems supplemental at this point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ODP? Do top players still participate in that program? Seems supplemental at this point

No top player does this, these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Likely Not going to happen, this would go against FIFA Standards, US Soccer Standards, US Youth National Team Standards, Olympics Standards and almost all International level sports governing body grouping standards.

This is why US Soccer moved to the birth year standard.

As we get closer to 1000 let’s remember the great quotes from the BY cultists….