ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

[Anonymous]

I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

I think parents will make that excuse for a while, but coaches are absolutely going to take who is going to help them win now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

I think most parents will welcome better, more experienced players to their kid's team (as long as their kid doesn't lose their spot OR a lot of playing time).

[Anonymous]

Yeah... Already starting to hear this line of BS.

Parents are dirty lying creatures.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if GA and mlsnext will communicate their plans around the same time. I’m not assuming that they will do the exact same thing, but to have GA come out and say SY and mlsnext say nothing will have clubs dealing with a lot of “concerned” parents. There are so many clubs with both GA and mlsnext, I hope they coordinate a release of information.

Before anyone says mlsnext is staying BY because they haven’t announced anything, that’s ridiculous. They may stay BY but they absolutely will communicate that given every other league is changing to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Off topic.

I met Zidane, Verrati, and Alphonso Davies this weekend at the Monaco Grand Prix. Zidane is average height (listed at 6’1” but in reality more like 5’11”), Verrati is like 5’5”, and Davies is 5’11”. All very fit but none are bulky. All world class players (Zidane one of the GOATs).

Americans continue to think about this sport like American football. That’s why we are shit.

Rather than biobanding and worrying about age cutoffs, we need to emphasize technique and intelligence.

I agree, but coaches across all levels don’t. Most coaches couldn’t tell you who is early in the birth year and who is later. There is no consideration that a player born in December may behave differently than a player born in January, especially at the younger ages when maturity is more apparent. That’s why we have top teams (mls academy included) loaded with first half of the birth year. There may be a token q4, but these are rare. That is what makes the age cutoff change so interesting. Players who were “very good” but maybe not great are going to be looked at differently when competing an age group younger.

Hopefully this age change shines a light on how poor of a job we do evaluating talent. Doubt it though.

I've been wondering the same - will coaches/parents all of a sudden start trying to mitigate RAE during this switch, even though they made no effort before it? For example, when a second team September birthday player runs down a February first team player and pushes him/her off the ball, will parents/coaches say, "The Feb player is still better because he/she is a first teamer, just younger"? I fully expect to instantly hear that excuse from people to rationalize how the younger player is still better, despite those people never, ever willing to give younger players the benefit of the doubt before.

Honestly, they won't be totally wrong with that excuse, but the hypocrisy will be infuriating. When a kid, at u12, is 95% as good as a player 6-12 months older, the younger kid probably has more potential than the older kid. But the older kid is absolutely better at that moment. People who believed the best kids in that moment should be chosen each year, with an eye toward winning the current season, will now be taking a future-oriented view.

The level of coaches and administrators even at the top clubs is very very low in comparison to Europe and other footballing countries (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia), so these folks don’t really go through any sort of nuanced thinking process. They simply ask, will this kid help me win now? That’s it.

And it’s why we are shit at this sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. I honestly can't believe this thread made it to 1000 pages! Quite the achievement.

I'll throw in my $0.02 which I have done a few times in some sort over the course of 1000 pages...

My DD is currently playing ECNL U16. She absolutely benefits from the BY system - she's a early January birthday and was always tall for her age.

Interestingly, she has 3 players on her team that are post 9/1 cutoff birthdays that would drop down a team. The current U17 team has 3 also that would drop - one of those players is in my DD's HS class.

So, it all kinda comes out in the wash.

Here's to 2000!

For girls and above U17, sure FY2026 change won't matter so not a big deal to you. Wash is going to spit some kids out, thinking otherwise is the denial stage of change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

My son (September 2012) is the youngest of his MLS Next team (pay to play club, not Academy).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

Sure why not at our club: U11A team 1 Q4, U11 B team 6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have the one token Q4 on our ECNL team, second year in a row. The only kid born after June. I can’t wait to see what she looks like when she moves down an age group!

My kid's teams

G07/08 RL... 5 Q4
G10 NL... 5 Q4
B13 RL... 4 Q4

Since we're just doing anecdotes - U12G NA Pre-ECNL competitive team and 0 Q4s (but 2 late sept Q3s)

At the younger ages it's a huge issue.

Sure why not at our club: U11A team 1 Q4, U11 B team 6

next year's U13 team: 4 are q4. of those 4, maybe one possible starter (not definite). 2 are likely last off the bench.