ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Ok, I have read this thread for a while now. “Are you not entertained”? I am. I played in the 90’s (yup, makes me pushing 50 in a few years) when they changed from BY to SY before going back to BY…and now SY again🤣

I am an August birthday. After the change I was the only 9th grader on an 8th grade team. I was the youngest kid in school. My Junior and Senior year the club moved me “up” to the older age group for recruiting which every club should do come 26/27. If they don’t, if you have an August kid that would be a grade older, sophomore year (recruiting was a year later in the 90’s) find a club that will. My son is a Sept. 2010. I do NOT want this age change for I want him playing with the oldest kids possible. Q1 parents should look forward to this change for the same reason. They get to play with now older kids. Either way, none of this “debate” really matters. SY+whatever no one should care if they do that…just a guess but I could see ECNL doing grad year showcases and leaving the season/playoffs to the 12 month window. No reason for not doing that since College is their angle.

The kids will be ok regardless of what 12 month window happens. If my son was born in August I absolutely would have considered holding him back. Being the youngest boy in a grade wasn’t fun for me for MANY reasons…none of which were sports related. It still worked out more than fine for me and I wouldn’t change a thing…so again, the kids will be ok🤣👊

Love the debates and looking forward to the next 500 pages!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I have read this thread for a while now. “Are you not entertained”? I am. I played in the 90’s (yup, makes me pushing 50 in a few years) when they changed from BY to SY before going back to BY…and now SY again🤣

I am an August birthday. After the change I was the only 9th grader on an 8th grade team. I was the youngest kid in school. My Junior and Senior year the club moved me “up” to the older age group for recruiting which every club should do come 26/27. If they don’t, if you have an August kid that would be a grade older, sophomore year (recruiting was a year later in the 90’s) find a club that will. My son is a Sept. 2010. I do NOT want this age change for I want him playing with the oldest kids possible. Q1 parents should look forward to this change for the same reason. They get to play with now older kids. Either way, none of this “debate” really matters. SY+whatever no one should care if they do that…just a guess but I could see ECNL doing grad year showcases and leaving the season/playoffs to the 12 month window. No reason for not doing that since College is their angle.

The kids will be ok regardless of what 12 month window happens. If my son was born in August I absolutely would have considered holding him back. Being the youngest boy in a grade wasn’t fun for me for MANY reasons…none of which were sports related. It still worked out more than fine for me and I wouldn’t change a thing…so again, the kids will be ok🤣👊

Love the debates and looking forward to the next 500 pages!

Very wise, but a whole bunch of biobanding parents will be against you. They want their kids to play down to be the oldest, so they can play in the MLSN league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Biobanding Q4 kids is almost pointless for MLSN teams looking for an edge. Biobanding Q1s and 2s is where the payoff is for the weaker clubs trying to obtained n a level of competitiveness.

MLSN does not need to use SY to achieve what ECNL targets for trap players. The biobanding player in our MLSN team is possibly April birthday, so about 20 months older than my son.

Bio-banding is the process of grouping athletes based on attributes associated with growth and maturation, rather than chronological age. Therefore, it loses its purpose and potential benefit if you decide to use it, in part, for chronological age alone. Furthermore, MLSN would not be BY or SY, it would actually not have a primary age cutoff at all, which is not going to fly with many clubs, families and tournament directors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Biobanding Q4 kids is almost pointless for MLSN teams looking for an edge. Biobanding Q1s and 2s is where the payoff is for the weaker clubs trying to obtained n a level of competitiveness.

MLSN does not need to use SY to achieve what ECNL targets for trap players. The biobanding player in our MLSN team is possibly April birthday, so about 20 months older than my son.

Bio-banding is the process of grouping athletes based on attributes associated with growth and maturation, rather than chronological age. Therefore, it loses its purpose and potential benefit if you decide to use it, in part, for chronological age alone. Furthermore, MLSN would not be BY or SY, it would actually not have a primary age cutoff at all, which is not going to fly with many clubs, families and tournament directors.

In theory if a MLSN team (BY) was to play a SY team that's 5 months older because of an 8/1 cutoff biobanded players would even things out.

In reality using biobanding to even things out will always create animosity because everyone's interpretation of what a 5 months older player looks like is different.

Also theres a difference in philosophies going on. One group wants to be the superstar so that look like the best of their graduating year to appeal to recruiters. The other wants to play against older players to look like the best possible player for playing professionally asap.

[Anonymous]

Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

WTF are u all talking about ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

Mere humans…

Nothing natural like kids all born during the same revolution around the sun

It no more natural a construct than the first simple tools, made from rock or shells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

Mere humans…

Nothing natural like kids all born during the same revolution around the sun

It no more natural a construct than the first simple tools, made from rock or shells.

Then you're actually arguing for a seasonal cycle ... So, probably neither BY or SY -- you my friend are suggesting Apr-Mar! Happy Spring -- it's when ALL should start (except maybe in the southern hemisphere and maybe something different for the tropics?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

If we're really going to get philosophical, it should be SY+42

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

If we're really going to get philosophical, it should be SY+42

SY + anything is just a different cutoff altogether. Yall are being silly like the MLSN BY within bioband dreamers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If we're really going to get philosophical, it should be SY+42

Haha, love it. Pack your towels!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biobanding to accommodate SY age groups is ridiculous for so many reasons and no serious MLSN coach or official should be saying this. Dollars to donuts it is all Feb-Jul parents.

Let natural selection take place. Don’t fight it.

There's nothing natural about a 12-month window establishing age group youth soccer -- whether its BY or SY. It's created/managed by us -- only natural in that sense of how humans form their societies -- which now include maybe unfortunately arguing about it in a virtual world powered through the building blocks of sand.

SY +90 vibes

Mayan calendar vibes