ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA going 8-1. No surprise.

Then MLS Next is an apparent lone ranger staying BY. Interesting.

Not saying it isn't correct or will be correct, but that post was speculative and has no sources

To be fair, had the poster said he/she is actually at the GA meeting, it would be dismissed as bullshit.

I was in the GA meeting.

Age cutoffs WERE discussed. However, no change was proposed, no change was made. Just a discussion around the implications of staying BY vs 8/1.

Status quo was the plan moving forward. And remains the plan at the moment. But it was also pointed out that US Soccer has now given us the freedom to change down the road if the MLS alliance turns out to be a dud, and if the NWSL platform plans don’t get off the ground.

Basically the TLR is no change for now, but we’ll wait and watch.

What were the ‘implications’ discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA going 8-1. No surprise.

Then MLS Next is an apparent lone ranger staying BY. Interesting.

Not saying it isn't correct or will be correct, but that post was speculative and has no sources

To be fair, had the poster said he/she is actually at the GA meeting, it would be dismissed as bullshit.

I was in the GA meeting.

Age cutoffs WERE discussed. However, no change was proposed, no change was made. Just a discussion around the implications of staying BY vs 8/1.

Status quo was the plan moving forward. And remains the plan at the moment. But it was also pointed out that US Soccer has now given us the freedom to change down the road if the MLS alliance turns out to be a dud, and if the NWSL platform plans don’t get off the ground.

Basically the TLR is no change for now, but we’ll wait and watch.

What were the ‘implications’ discussed?

Probably whether the advantage of keeping teams together and offering a landing spot for top players disaffected from the SY/BY change is worth having a separate age system where its member clubs have to cater to both and whether that would result in losing clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA going 8-1. No surprise.

Then MLS Next is an apparent lone ranger staying BY. Interesting.

Not saying it isn't correct or will be correct, but that post was speculative and has no sources

To be fair, had the poster said he/she is actually at the GA meeting, it would be dismissed as bullshit.

I was in the GA meeting.

Age cutoffs WERE discussed. However, no change was proposed, no change was made. Just a discussion around the implications of staying BY vs 8/1.

Status quo was the plan moving forward. And remains the plan at the moment. But it was also pointed out that US Soccer has now given us the freedom to change down the road if the MLS alliance turns out to be a dud, and if the NWSL platform plans don’t get off the ground.

Basically the TLR is no change for now, but we’ll wait and watch.

So you are a DOC or owner of a GA club? And you are posting on a DCUrbanMoms message board? Is there any reason you wont disclose who you are or what club you are affiliated with? Would go a long way towards your credibility.

As I have said before, dont believe me, dont believe this guy, call, text, email YOUR club representatives that was in the room yesterday that you know and trust and ask them what was said. That is what I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA going 8-1. No surprise.

Then MLS Next is an apparent lone ranger staying BY. Interesting.

Not saying it isn't correct or will be correct, but that post was speculative and has no sources

To be fair, had the poster said he/she is actually at the GA meeting, it would be dismissed as bullshit.

I was in the GA meeting.

Age cutoffs WERE discussed. However, no change was proposed, no change was made. Just a discussion around the implications of staying BY vs 8/1.

Status quo was the plan moving forward. And remains the plan at the moment. But it was also pointed out that US Soccer has now given us the freedom to change down the road if the MLS alliance turns out to be a dud, and if the NWSL platform plans don’t get off the ground.

Basically the TLR is no change for now, but we’ll wait and watch.

So you are a DOC or owner of a GA club? And you are posting on a DCUrbanMoms message board? Is there any reason you wont disclose who you are or what club you are affiliated with? Would go a long way towards your credibility.

As I have said before, dont believe me, dont believe this guy, call, text, email YOUR club representatives that was in the room yesterday that you know and trust and ask them what was said. That is what I did.

What did they say?

[Anonymous]

If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

MLSN has some leverage but not as much as they think and their player pool will cut in half and give ECNL the edge especially since slight preference of SY per surveys; and future RAE of the pipeline will all be SY. MLSN gains nothing by staying BY and it’s mainly current Q2-3 parents wish casting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

No, GA teams will just be 5 months younger than other leagues that change to SY 8/1 cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

MLSN has some leverage but not as much as they think and their player pool will cut in half and give ECNL the edge especially since slight preference of SY per surveys; and future RAE of the pipeline will all be SY. MLSN gains nothing by staying BY and it’s mainly current Q2-3 parents wish casting.

Keep wishing, MLSN already has biobanding. SY is irrelevant to them.

[Anonymous]

Another way both MLSN and GA could address SY with an 8/1 cutoff is to change biobanding so a team can have 6 bioband players born before 1/1 but they can only be born between 8/1 and 12/31 the previous year.

What this would do is keep the team BY but also let them compete with SY teams with an 8/1 cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another way both MLSN and GA could address SY with an 8/1 cutoff is to change biobanding so a team can have 6 bioband players born before 1/1 but they can only be born between 8/1 and 12/31 the previous year.

What this would do is keep the team BY but also let them compete with SY teams with an 8/1 cutoff.

So basically BY+150 (counting each month as 30 days)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

MLSN has some leverage but not as much as they think and their player pool will cut in half and give ECNL the edge especially since slight preference of SY per surveys; and future RAE of the pipeline will all be SY. MLSN gains nothing by staying BY and it’s mainly current Q2-3 parents wish casting.

Keep wishing, MLSN already has biobanding. SY is irrelevant to them.

The guise of Biobanding won’t save the BY crazies. The landscape to u12 all SY and ECNL being a viable option to keep teams together under a reliable system, as opposed to a tenuous year to year windowing of players makes no sense. Come u13 MLSN will be sifting through B team players born from Feb-July.

[Anonymous]

So no news from the GA AGM?

How can no one know.

[Anonymous]

Also just copy and paste the screen shot. It works just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If GA stays BY how would it work for things like Jeff Cup or Surf Cup where all other clubs are 8-1 and GA clubs at 1-1?

Would it impact only the GA team at these clubs I guess since many clubs are also affiliated with USYS for their lower level teams.

I get why MLS Next could stay BY, becasue they have so much leverage being even more dominant on the boys side than ECNL is on the girls side but GA simply doesn’t have that leverage.

Seems like a total cluster which is why I am skeptical GA stays BY

MLSN has some leverage but not as much as they think and their player pool will cut in half and give ECNL the edge especially since slight preference of SY per surveys; and future RAE of the pipeline will all be SY. MLSN gains nothing by staying BY and it’s mainly current Q2-3 parents wish casting.

Keep wishing, MLSN already has biobanding. SY is irrelevant to them.

The guise of Biobanding won’t save the BY crazies. The landscape to u12 all SY and ECNL being a viable option to keep teams together under a reliable system, as opposed to a tenuous year to year windowing of players makes no sense. Come u13 MLSN will be sifting through B team players born from Feb-July.

We get that you have a youngers girl playing. But sorry the environment is different for boys especially older boys. Instead of fighting against something you dont understand spend some time researching MLS, MLS Next, and Acadamies in general. Once you do BY will make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So no news from the GA AGM?

How can no one know.

Likely because nothing was relayed