ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, with this big decision today, GA really is on the clock. What will they do? (MLSN, too, for that matter).

If you sift out all the noises and trolls from the last 50 pages or so, the answer is already there.

GA will be SY 8/1.

Are you the same person that said GA would announce 9/1 SY last week?

Ever get tired of being wrong?

[Anonymous]

MLSN lets ECNL back in on the boys side by staying BY, no doubt. Will be fun to watch all the MLSN badge wearers become ECNL crazies next Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a most thrilling day in my soccer mom life (mom of 2 August kids). Finally!

Opposite for me. my August DD starts on an ECNL team. Rather not deal with the pressure of the club wanting her to drop down. She wants to stay with her current friends and team. Parent are already texting me saying oh you get to come to our team next year!

[Anonymous]

First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

[Anonymous]

ECNL be like damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

Assuming the reaction corresponds with their school cutoff (I.e. if their child is in a grade lower or has a state with an 8/1 cutoff they’re happy and states with 9/1 cutoffs or have an August birthday with their kid being in the higher grade, not so happy). Generalized opinion of course.

[Anonymous]

It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

There is no point in waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

There is no point in waiting.

People just went thru tryouts. You think they want to do that hell again? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

There is no point in waiting.

People just went thru tryouts. You think they want to do that hell again? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

They should have announced this change in February and implemented it this upcoming season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

There is no point in waiting.

People just went thru tryouts. You think they want to do that hell again? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No tryouts again they have rosters, now just move them all around or maybe just 4-6 players per team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the right decision given the goal is to minimize the number of trapped players.

The question for me is if they’re going to have any transitional rules.

If not, I think this lame duck year is a complete waste.

Why do you think it’s a waste? Because the teams will change to some degree next year? Teams change every year anyway

There is no point in waiting.

People just went thru tryouts. You think they want to do that hell again? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No tryouts again they have rosters, now just move them all around or maybe just 4-6 players per team.

But what if they want to adjust MORE? That's why they needed this long runway. They're still figuring it out as they go along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First tre August parents were freaking out they got bumped from the 9/1 cutoff, now the August parents are crying about playing on the team below? This is America where no one is ever satisfied

I think the stats were like two-thirds of America has 9/1 or later cutoff, so we just created a huge misaligned co-hort, larger than the grouping that would have been trapped. Sure, you won't have trapped players BUT have mostly 8th-grade teams who might now lose players to HS every year. Maybe that's better because it puts the problem on clubs, instead of individuals who have more flexibility/choice on how to handle.

Don’t think so. Can’t play down if you’re an August kid in a 9/1 soccer system. And it’s not a huge misaligned cohort because the cohort in this scenario are August kids. Of those August kids, a lot (I don’t have the numbers so don’t come at me, bro) don’t start school by the cutoff and instead wait to go to kindergarten. So in reality, that alleged misaligned cohort is even smaller taking into account those kids.