ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

It’s cute to see all the passion and chest thumping about whose kid is better and playing up vs grade level, but these alphabet leagues are a business and will do what’s in the best interest from that perspective alone. Is going SY like the rest of the pipeline better for MLSN clubs as it avoids alienating and reducing the potential player pool. Or, is needing BY from u13 on, in order to fall in line with identifying pro talent for contracts, more profitable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s cute to see all the passion and chest thumping about whose kid is better and playing up vs grade level, but these alphabet leagues are a business and will do what’s in the best interest from that perspective alone. Is going SY like the rest of the pipeline better for MLSN clubs as it avoids alienating and reducing the potential player pool. Or, is needing BY from u13 on, in order to fall in line with identifying pro talent for contracts, more profitable?

Its cut that you dont understand that MLS Next Acadamies are run by and for MLS clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can one have credibility on an anonymous forum?

I feel like I have credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That scenario sounds difficult for clubs to manage. There’s not a huge amount of upside to BY especially if all the other major leagues are going SY so I’m not sure why that approach makes sense.

You dont understand because all you know is youth soccer and likely under u12. Your kid is in elementary or maybe middle school. Because of this grouping by grade seems to make sense. Also in Americal college soccer a scholorship is a potential outcome. This doesnt exist in other countries.

Internationally clubs and national teams are more aligned to BY. This is because Acadamies are geared to identify top talent for playing on professional teams and national teams. Nothing else matters and college soccer doesnt exist.

MLSN is a league but its basically a funnel for MLS Acadamies. MLS Acadamies are a funnel for MLS and other pro teams. In this environment its not that college isn't considered if players have talent. Its just that theres so much money involved in playing professionally that by just playing a season or two all college costs are covered. So scholorships dont matter.

The girls parents that love to comment on MLSN have no clue how things work on the boys side. If they did they wouldn't comment that ECNL is "just as good" as MLS Acadamies. It's not, and never will be because the leagues target outcomes are different (pro vs college scholorships).

MLSN is a money pit that they are trying to turn into a cash cow. They see the cash at the lower ages and secondary leagues and are trying to increase their currently small market share of the youth soccer dollars. What they purport to be is just marketing fluff as they actually operate like a Nigerian scam. They are having to adjust their business model that didn't work for DA either.

Nope, MLSN clubs typically have 2x-3x the number of boys youth teams than ECNL or any other boys league. Its fairly obvious which environment youth players want to play in when they get older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s cute to see all the passion and chest thumping about whose kid is better and playing up vs grade level, but these alphabet leagues are a business and will do what’s in the best interest from that perspective alone. Is going SY like the rest of the pipeline better for MLSN clubs as it avoids alienating and reducing the potential player pool. Or, is needing BY from u13 on, in order to fall in line with identifying pro talent for contracts, more profitable?

Its cut that you dont understand that MLS Next Acadamies are run by and for MLS clubs.

Yes of course and presumably MLSN has to be profitable, what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That scenario sounds difficult for clubs to manage. There’s not a huge amount of upside to BY especially if all the other major leagues are going SY so I’m not sure why that approach makes sense.

You dont understand because all you know is youth soccer and likely under u12. Your kid is in elementary or maybe middle school. Because of this grouping by grade seems to make sense. Also in Americal college soccer a scholorship is a potential outcome. This doesnt exist in other countries.

Internationally clubs and national teams are more aligned to BY. This is because Acadamies are geared to identify top talent for playing on professional teams and national teams. Nothing else matters and college soccer doesnt exist.

MLSN is a league but its basically a funnel for MLS Acadamies. MLS Acadamies are a funnel for MLS and other pro teams. In this environment its not that college isn't considered if players have talent. Its just that theres so much money involved in playing professionally that by just playing a season or two all college costs are covered. So scholorships dont matter.

The girls parents that love to comment on MLSN have no clue how things work on the boys side. If they did they wouldn't comment that ECNL is "just as good" as MLS Acadamies. It's not, and never will be because the leagues target outcomes are different (pro vs college scholorships).

MLSN is a money pit that they are trying to turn into a cash cow. They see the cash at the lower ages and secondary leagues and are trying to increase their currently small market share of the youth soccer dollars. What they purport to be is just marketing fluff as they actually operate like a Nigerian scam. They are having to adjust their business model that didn't work for DA either.

Nope, MLSN clubs typically have 2x-3x the number of boys youth teams than ECNL or any other boys league. Its fairly obvious which environment youth players want to play in when they get older.

I mean sure? Except where I live the MLS next clubs are all considered second tier and and the ECNL clubs are much larger, much more successful, and actually provide more kids for the local MLS academy than the MLS next p2p clubs.

I think it varies a lot by locality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That scenario sounds difficult for clubs to manage. There’s not a huge amount of upside to BY especially if all the other major leagues are going SY so I’m not sure why that approach makes sense.

You dont understand because all you know is youth soccer and likely under u12. Your kid is in elementary or maybe middle school. Because of this grouping by grade seems to make sense. Also in Americal college soccer a scholorship is a potential outcome. This doesnt exist in other countries.

Internationally clubs and national teams are more aligned to BY. This is because Acadamies are geared to identify top talent for playing on professional teams and national teams. Nothing else matters and college soccer doesnt exist.

MLSN is a league but its basically a funnel for MLS Acadamies. MLS Acadamies are a funnel for MLS and other pro teams. In this environment its not that college isn't considered if players have talent. Its just that theres so much money involved in playing professionally that by just playing a season or two all college costs are covered. So scholorships dont matter.

The girls parents that love to comment on MLSN have no clue how things work on the boys side. If they did they wouldn't comment that ECNL is "just as good" as MLS Acadamies. It's not, and never will be because the leagues target outcomes are different (pro vs college scholorships).

MLSN is a money pit that they are trying to turn into a cash cow. They see the cash at the lower ages and secondary leagues and are trying to increase their currently small market share of the youth soccer dollars. What they purport to be is just marketing fluff as they actually operate like a Nigerian scam. They are having to adjust their business model that didn't work for DA either.

Nope, MLSN clubs typically have 2x-3x the number of boys youth teams than ECNL or any other boys league. Its fairly obvious which environment youth players want to play in when they get older.

I mean sure? Except where I live the MLS next clubs are all considered second tier and and the ECNL clubs are much larger, much more successful, and actually provide more kids for the local MLS academy than the MLS next p2p clubs.

I think it varies a lot by locality.

100% not whats happening where I live.

My youngest just started playing after going through the process with a 2010. Attending youngers tournamants again and one thing that is 100% obvious to me is that MLSN clubs have way more boys teams than non MLSN. At least this is what I noticed from 6 years ago until now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That scenario sounds difficult for clubs to manage. There’s not a huge amount of upside to BY especially if all the other major leagues are going SY so I’m not sure why that approach makes sense.

You dont understand because all you know is youth soccer and likely under u12. Your kid is in elementary or maybe middle school. Because of this grouping by grade seems to make sense. Also in Americal college soccer a scholorship is a potential outcome. This doesnt exist in other countries.

Internationally clubs and national teams are more aligned to BY. This is because Acadamies are geared to identify top talent for playing on professional teams and national teams. Nothing else matters and college soccer doesnt exist.

MLSN is a league but its basically a funnel for MLS Acadamies. MLS Acadamies are a funnel for MLS and other pro teams. In this environment its not that college isn't considered if players have talent. Its just that theres so much money involved in playing professionally that by just playing a season or two all college costs are covered. So scholorships dont matter.

The girls parents that love to comment on MLSN have no clue how things work on the boys side. If they did they wouldn't comment that ECNL is "just as good" as MLS Acadamies. It's not, and never will be because the leagues target outcomes are different (pro vs college scholorships).

MLSN is a money pit that they are trying to turn into a cash cow. They see the cash at the lower ages and secondary leagues and are trying to increase their currently small market share of the youth soccer dollars. What they purport to be is just marketing fluff as they actually operate like a Nigerian scam. They are having to adjust their business model that didn't work for DA either.

Nope, MLSN clubs typically have 2x-3x the number of boys youth teams than ECNL or any other boys league. Its fairly obvious which environment youth players want to play in when they get older.

I mean sure? Except where I live the MLS next clubs are all considered second tier and and the ECNL clubs are much larger, much more successful, and actually provide more kids for the local MLS academy than the MLS next p2p clubs.

I think it varies a lot by locality.

100% not whats happening where I live.

My youngest just started playing after going through the process with a 2010. Attending youngers tournamants again and one thing that is 100% obvious to me is that MLSN clubs have way more boys teams than non MLSN. At least this is what I noticed from 6 years ago until now.

I’m sure that’s true because it’s all about critical mass right? Like the best clubs wants to play in the most competitive leagues which is wherever they all are. There’s a lot of momentum you know.

I think people here talk about it though like there is one national truth and it’s just not true. It varies ALOT by local area and all you really care about if your son is good, is him playing in the most competitive environment you have access to reasonably from your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That scenario sounds difficult for clubs to manage. There’s not a huge amount of upside to BY especially if all the other major leagues are going SY so I’m not sure why that approach makes sense.

You dont understand because all you know is youth soccer and likely under u12. Your kid is in elementary or maybe middle school. Because of this grouping by grade seems to make sense. Also in Americal college soccer a scholorship is a potential outcome. This doesnt exist in other countries.

Internationally clubs and national teams are more aligned to BY. This is because Acadamies are geared to identify top talent for playing on professional teams and national teams. Nothing else matters and college soccer doesnt exist.

MLSN is a league but its basically a funnel for MLS Acadamies. MLS Acadamies are a funnel for MLS and other pro teams. In this environment its not that college isn't considered if players have talent. Its just that theres so much money involved in playing professionally that by just playing a season or two all college costs are covered. So scholorships dont matter.

The girls parents that love to comment on MLSN have no clue how things work on the boys side. If they did they wouldn't comment that ECNL is "just as good" as MLS Acadamies. It's not, and never will be because the leagues target outcomes are different (pro vs college scholorships).

MLSN is a money pit that they are trying to turn into a cash cow. They see the cash at the lower ages and secondary leagues and are trying to increase their currently small market share of the youth soccer dollars. What they purport to be is just marketing fluff as they actually operate like a Nigerian scam. They are having to adjust their business model that didn't work for DA either.

Nope, MLSN clubs typically have 2x-3x the number of boys youth teams than ECNL or any other boys league. Its fairly obvious which environment youth players want to play in when they get older.

I mean sure? Except where I live the MLS next clubs are all considered second tier and and the ECNL clubs are much larger, much more successful, and actually provide more kids for the local MLS academy than the MLS next p2p clubs.

I think it varies a lot by locality.

100% not whats happening where I live.

My youngest just started playing after going through the process with a 2010. Attending youngers tournamants again and one thing that is 100% obvious to me is that MLSN clubs have way more boys teams than non MLSN. At least this is what I noticed from 6 years ago until now.

I’m sure that’s true because it’s all about critical mass right? Like the best clubs wants to play in the most competitive leagues which is wherever they all are. There’s a lot of momentum you know.

I think people here talk about it though like there is one national truth and it’s just not true. It varies ALOT by local area and all you really care about if your son is good, is him playing in the most competitive environment you have access to reasonably from your house.

This is true. While I do believe that MLSN has more pull than ECNL for boys. Its not like we hate ECNL clubs. One of our favorite coaches id ECNl and has his own Futsal club which we go out of our way to play for.

My only issue is all the girl parents stumping for ECNL. They dont understand how boys your soccer works and should just stop commenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that I've noticed reading through the comments is that ECNL parents seem genuinely excited to play down with a younger age group. It seems like this this is so players can stand out for college recruiters.

MLSN Acadamies and Acadamies in general are looking for players that can dominate while playing up. These are the type of players that will get picked to play at the next level and eventually pro.

Fundamentally different end products.

You lost all credibly when you said "playing down".

No, that's the correct terminology.

You lost all credibility when you got excited for the potential for your kid to play down.

If they were they real deal they'd be playing up and getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Your Q1 with all the advantages today playing down also isn't getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Exactly he’s all excited about his Q1 kid “playing up” when they’ve just been playing with their actual cohort….its way more impressive if a Q4 kid plays up…


I think we are gonna find out really soon that a lot of Q1-2 kids were just average to below average…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that I've noticed reading through the comments is that ECNL parents seem genuinely excited to play down with a younger age group. It seems like this this is so players can stand out for college recruiters.

MLSN Acadamies and Acadamies in general are looking for players that can dominate while playing up. These are the type of players that will get picked to play at the next level and eventually pro.

Fundamentally different end products.

You lost all credibly when you said "playing down".

No, that's the correct terminology.

You lost all credibility when you got excited for the potential for your kid to play down.

If they were they real deal they'd be playing up and getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Your Q1 with all the advantages today playing down also isn't getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Keep moving the goalposts around.

Doesn't change the fact that you're excited to have your kid play down for wins.

This change doesn't effect my kid, but why wouldn't parents of Q4 parents want their kids playing with other kids who they will be fighting scholarships for? How does that not make sense? Of course it makes sense for Q4 kids to be seen playing with other kids of the same graduation class because a scout isn't going to care they are a Q4 but different year.

What youre describing is why many people are pushing for GY starting with U17 and u18. If the end goal is getting recruited to play in college put all the players graduating a certain year into its own group.

What's annoying about all the SY people is with a single cutoff date of 9/1 there will still be trapped players. It might work around here because of when schools start but it wont work for everyone nationally. What end up happening is 80% of the current trapped players are addressed by switching to SY with a 9/1 cutoff but 20% are still trapped depending on when the district stated.

What's also annoying is the people pushing for SY that really just want their kid to play down for wins. Achievement in a sport isn't supposed to be about dominating against younger players. Talent is a younger player that is able to play up and dominate.

I love when BY crazies are now concerned about trapped players…

Where do you get the 20%? Your ass?

[Anonymous]

No news, sigh ... Another weekend of just more watered-down discussion. You'd think this was an elite league trying to expand for more cannon fodder and cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that I've noticed reading through the comments is that ECNL parents seem genuinely excited to play down with a younger age group. It seems like this this is so players can stand out for college recruiters.

MLSN Acadamies and Acadamies in general are looking for players that can dominate while playing up. These are the type of players that will get picked to play at the next level and eventually pro.

Fundamentally different end products.

You lost all credibly when you said "playing down".

No, that's the correct terminology.

You lost all credibility when you got excited for the potential for your kid to play down.

If they were they real deal they'd be playing up and getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Your Q1 with all the advantages today playing down also isn't getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Keep moving the goalposts around.

Doesn't change the fact that you're excited to have your kid play down for wins.

This change doesn't effect my kid, but why wouldn't parents of Q4 parents want their kids playing with other kids who they will be fighting scholarships for? How does that not make sense? Of course it makes sense for Q4 kids to be seen playing with other kids of the same graduation class because a scout isn't going to care they are a Q4 but different year.

What youre describing is why many people are pushing for GY starting with U17 and u18. If the end goal is getting recruited to play in college put all the players graduating a certain year into its own group.

What's annoying about all the SY people is with a single cutoff date of 9/1 there will still be trapped players. It might work around here because of when schools start but it wont work for everyone nationally. What end up happening is 80% of the current trapped players are addressed by switching to SY with a 9/1 cutoff but 20% are still trapped depending on when the district stated.

What's also annoying is the people pushing for SY that really just want their kid to play down for wins. Achievement in a sport isn't supposed to be about dominating against younger players. Talent is a younger player that is able to play up and dominate.

I love when BY crazies are now concerned about trapped players…

Where do you get the 20%? Your ass?

Depends on which state and the school start date. Which youre so obviously choosing to ignore in your giddy euphoria of being able to play down for wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that I've noticed reading through the comments is that ECNL parents seem genuinely excited to play down with a younger age group. It seems like this this is so players can stand out for college recruiters.

MLSN Acadamies and Acadamies in general are looking for players that can dominate while playing up. These are the type of players that will get picked to play at the next level and eventually pro.

Fundamentally different end products.

You lost all credibly when you said "playing down".

No, that's the correct terminology.

You lost all credibility when you got excited for the potential for your kid to play down.

If they were they real deal they'd be playing up and getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Your Q1 with all the advantages today playing down also isn't getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Keep moving the goalposts around.

Doesn't change the fact that you're excited to have your kid play down for wins.

This change doesn't effect my kid, but why wouldn't parents of Q4 parents want their kids playing with other kids who they will be fighting scholarships for? How does that not make sense? Of course it makes sense for Q4 kids to be seen playing with other kids of the same graduation class because a scout isn't going to care they are a Q4 but different year.

What youre describing is why many people are pushing for GY starting with U17 and u18. If the end goal is getting recruited to play in college put all the players graduating a certain year into its own group.

What's annoying about all the SY people is with a single cutoff date of 9/1 there will still be trapped players. It might work around here because of when schools start but it wont work for everyone nationally. What end up happening is 80% of the current trapped players are addressed by switching to SY with a 9/1 cutoff but 20% are still trapped depending on when the district stated.

What's also annoying is the people pushing for SY that really just want their kid to play down for wins. Achievement in a sport isn't supposed to be about dominating against younger players. Talent is a younger player that is able to play up and dominate.

I love when BY crazies are now concerned about trapped players…

Where do you get the 20%? Your ass?

Depends on which state and the school start date. Which youre so obviously choosing to ignore in your giddy euphoria of being able to play down for wins.

Ahh the person who doesn't understand what playing up or down means and only cares about wins, is also bad at math. I'm shocked!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the things that I've noticed reading through the comments is that ECNL parents seem genuinely excited to play down with a younger age group. It seems like this this is so players can stand out for college recruiters.

MLSN Acadamies and Acadamies in general are looking for players that can dominate while playing up. These are the type of players that will get picked to play at the next level and eventually pro.

Fundamentally different end products.

You lost all credibly when you said "playing down".

No, that's the correct terminology.

You lost all credibility when you got excited for the potential for your kid to play down.

If they were they real deal they'd be playing up and getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Your Q1 with all the advantages today playing down also isn't getting noticed by USYNT scouts.

Keep moving the goalposts around.

Doesn't change the fact that you're excited to have your kid play down for wins.

This change doesn't effect my kid, but why wouldn't parents of Q4 parents want their kids playing with other kids who they will be fighting scholarships for? How does that not make sense? Of course it makes sense for Q4 kids to be seen playing with other kids of the same graduation class because a scout isn't going to care they are a Q4 but different year.

What youre describing is why many people are pushing for GY starting with U17 and u18. If the end goal is getting recruited to play in college put all the players graduating a certain year into its own group.

What's annoying about all the SY people is with a single cutoff date of 9/1 there will still be trapped players. It might work around here because of when schools start but it wont work for everyone nationally. What end up happening is 80% of the current trapped players are addressed by switching to SY with a 9/1 cutoff but 20% are still trapped depending on when the district stated.

What's also annoying is the people pushing for SY that really just want their kid to play down for wins. Achievement in a sport isn't supposed to be about dominating against younger players. Talent is a younger player that is able to play up and dominate.

I love when BY crazies are now concerned about trapped players…

Where do you get the 20%? Your ass?

Depends on which state and the school start date. Which youre so obviously choosing to ignore in your giddy euphoria of being able to play down for wins.

Ahh the person who doesn't understand what playing up or down means and only cares about wins, is also bad at math. I'm shocked!

No idea what you're going for.

Stop embarrassing yourself.