ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

As has been previously pointed out, AYSO just moved from SY to BY a couple of years ago. The idea that USYS would get on board when one of its biggest members was dragged across the finish line recently by USYS to comply with USSF and FIFA only to be totally undermined by USYS to help out ECNL (not apples to apples competitor to AYSO, but a competitor league none the less) is a bit fantastical of a proposition.

I can see the argument for mid and low tier competitive soccer and rec soccer to by SY. I have a hard time seeing the logic as one climbs the pyramid into pools that should be feeding YNTs, College and Pro ranks - those are the tiers that most need alignment to international standard and benchmarking.

USSF has not enforced its 2016 shift to BY for many rec programs for just that reason. But what a mess it would create it MLSN and GA were BY and ECNL SY for evaluating results and data when looking at pools for college, pools for YNG, pools for pros. I can’t believe USSF would allow that - it’s bad for the overall game and it’s bad for our ability to compete at the very highest levels.

[Anonymous]

Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

As has been previously pointed out, AYSO just moved from SY to BY a couple of years ago. The idea that USYS would get on board when one of its biggest members was dragged across the finish line recently by USYS to comply with USSF and FIFA only to be totally undermined by USYS to help out ECNL (not apples to apples competitor to AYSO, but a competitor league none the less) is a bit fantastical of a proposition.

I can see the argument for mid and low tier competitive soccer and rec soccer to by SY. I have a hard time seeing the logic as one climbs the pyramid into pools that should be feeding YNTs, College and Pro ranks - those are the tiers that most need alignment to international standard and benchmarking.

USSF has not enforced its 2016 shift to BY for many rec programs for just that reason. But what a mess it would create it MLSN and GA were BY and ECNL SY for evaluating results and data when looking at pools for college, pools for YNG, pools for pros. I can’t believe USSF would allow that - it’s bad for the overall game and it’s bad for our ability to compete at the very highest levels.

How did AYSO not officially adopt the BY change for so long? Many posters have said that USSF is strictly in charge of it and everyone must do what they say on this. AYSO is a member of USSF on the Youth Council. Also, AYSO regions by me still do not use BY today. Some use strict GY, and some use calendar cutoffs aligned with the SY. If we're speculating on AYSO's opinion, it seems like they don't like BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

Dude, do you believe everything you hear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

As has been previously pointed out, AYSO just moved from SY to BY a couple of years ago. The idea that USYS would get on board when one of its biggest members was dragged across the finish line recently by USYS to comply with USSF and FIFA only to be totally undermined by USYS to help out ECNL (not apples to apples competitor to AYSO, but a competitor league none the less) is a bit fantastical of a proposition.

I can see the argument for mid and low tier competitive soccer and rec soccer to by SY. I have a hard time seeing the logic as one climbs the pyramid into pools that should be feeding YNTs, College and Pro ranks - those are the tiers that most need alignment to international standard and benchmarking.

USSF has not enforced its 2016 shift to BY for many rec programs for just that reason. But what a mess it would create it MLSN and GA were BY and ECNL SY for evaluating results and data when looking at pools for college, pools for YNG, pools for pros. I can’t believe USSF would allow that - it’s bad for the overall game and it’s bad for our ability to compete at the very highest levels.

It sounds like the majority of soccer people understand this would really make things messy but believe SY is better for the MAJORITY of youth players. And changing is worth a one time disruption to get this right.

The primary focus should not be what’s best for the national team pool. As they are very much the minority of overall soccer players.

But I actually don’t think it’s a bad thing and MLSN and GA SHOULD be allowed to stay birth year. Having a one size fits all for so many kids I don’t think is the right approach either.

[Anonymous]

ECNL is trying to align with a dying college sport. They are trying to save college soccer as that is their bread and butter.

NILs will soon ruin college ball and leagues like (GA and MLS NEXT) will be the pathway to YNT, Pro, what’s left of college

That is what ECNL is trying to do with this change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

I will just say don’t be surprised if USSF who doesn’t really want to change from what I’m told. Is hit from all sides on this as far as data and backing for SY being better for the majority of kids. USSF would then have to openly take the stance we don’t really care about rec kids. Remember the reason everyone went along with BY is it was supposed to be better for the majority.

I could see USSF deciding to go with a Fall 2026 for clubs but us club and ECNL decided to start the process next year. Which would make the majority of clubs rip off the band aid as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

Dude, do you believe everything you hear?

The better question is why do some here believe nothing that they hear? Everything just keeps being dismissed by the conspiracy theory that there's no change seriously being discussed and it's all made up by crazy parents. Maybe that's true, and maybe our government really is hiding contact with aliens from us, but it's probably a bad bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

Dude, do you believe everything you hear?

The better question is why do some here believe nothing that they hear? Everything just keeps being dismissed by the conspiracy theory that there's no change seriously being discussed and it's all made up by crazy parents. Maybe that's true, and maybe our government really is hiding contact with aliens from us, but it's probably a bad bet.

It’s being discussed no doubt.

But as of now, we only know what the main guy who wants to change it is saying. Not one person here can vouch that clubs have been talking or preparing for this change.

This is like a political figure trying to get you to believe they will make changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is trying to align with a dying college sport. They are trying to save college soccer as that is their bread and butter.

NILs will soon ruin college ball and leagues like (GA and MLS NEXT) will be the pathway to YNT, Pro, what’s left of college

That is what ECNL is trying to do with this change.

Even if college soccer dies SY is still better for the majority which is hard for people to wrap their heads around that Rec kids, bronze, silver, insert level of kids just wanting to have fun. The reality is most kids just want to play with friends and won’t play college soccer either. I think only 3-5% of players play any level of college. And only 3-5% of college kids go pro. So you’re talking very much the minority.

The only argument for BY is because that pathway works better for my kid or even let’s say 5000-10000 academy kids that’s still very much the minority.
California alone probably has 100K rec kids (just a guess).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

So…ECNL has gathered responses from ECNL about what ECNL wants to do.

And ECNL is presenting ECNL’s responses as evidence that ECNL is on board with ECNL’s idea about moving all of soccer to SY for a couple of kids on ECNL’s rosters, that ECNL already has a policy to solve, but ECNL doesn’t want to use its own solution, because ECNL’s surveys of itself said they’d prefer to affect all of US Soccer for an ECNL issue?

I’ve got that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

As has been previously pointed out, AYSO just moved from SY to BY a couple of years ago. The idea that USYS would get on board when one of its biggest members was dragged across the finish line recently by USYS to comply with USSF and FIFA only to be totally undermined by USYS to help out ECNL (not apples to apples competitor to AYSO, but a competitor league none the less) is a bit fantastical of a proposition.

I can see the argument for mid and low tier competitive soccer and rec soccer to by SY. I have a hard time seeing the logic as one climbs the pyramid into pools that should be feeding YNTs, College and Pro ranks - those are the tiers that most need alignment to international standard and benchmarking.

USSF has not enforced its 2016 shift to BY for many rec programs for just that reason. But what a mess it would create it MLSN and GA were BY and ECNL SY for evaluating results and data when looking at pools for college, pools for YNG, pools for pros. I can’t believe USSF would allow that - it’s bad for the overall game and it’s bad for our ability to compete at the very highest levels.

It sounds like the majority of soccer people understand this would really make things messy but believe SY is better for the MAJORITY of youth players. And changing is worth a one time disruption to get this right.

The primary focus should not be what’s best for the national team pool. As they are very much the minority of overall soccer players.

But I actually don’t think it’s a bad thing and MLSN and GA SHOULD be allowed to stay birth year. Having a one size fits all for so many kids I don’t think is the right approach either.

You understand the soccer pyramid right? You get how it is supposed to function right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Except as already discussed in reality the change only affects 2-3 players per team. ECNL have hinted that they want the decision to be made in time for clubs to prepare for tryouts in the new year so that rosters can be reshuffled as necessary. None of us know yet who is voting in favor of it and who isn't. All we know right now is ECNL has gathered survey responses from clubs who agree will be messy in the short term but better in the long run and ECNL is pushing hard for everyone to change with them.

Dude, do you believe everything you hear?

The better question is why do some here believe nothing that they hear? Everything just keeps being dismissed by the conspiracy theory that there's no change seriously being discussed and it's all made up by crazy parents. Maybe that's true, and maybe our government really is hiding contact with aliens from us, but it's probably a bad bet.

Yes! The fact we are looked at as the crazy ones for listening to someone who knows and is involved in conversations.

You school year deniers can only keep and fingers in your ears going lalalala I can’t hear you for so long before you look like lunatics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ECNL is trying to align with a dying college sport. They are trying to save college soccer as that is their bread and butter.

NILs will soon ruin college ball and leagues like (GA and MLS NEXT) will be the pathway to YNT, Pro, what’s left of college

That is what ECNL is trying to do with this change.

Even if college soccer dies SY is still better for the majority which is hard for people to wrap their heads around that Rec kids, bronze, silver, insert level of kids just wanting to have fun. The reality is most kids just want to play with friends and won’t play college soccer either. I think only 3-5% of players play any level of college. And only 3-5% of college kids go pro. So you’re talking very much the minority.

The only argument for BY is because that pathway works better for my kid or even let’s say 5000-10000 academy kids that’s still very much the minority.
California alone probably has 100K rec kids (just a guess).

What do you mean play with their friends? How many of you kids friend play soccer? Competitive soccer at that?

This is a foolish statement. Most times they don’t even play at the same club. Stop with the nonsense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What people are not getting is that this change would be a big deal. Even if there is preliminary approval in November (which I doubt) there would need to be six months of more of work to plan for it. Rules, faqs, process, directions to the clubs. That would be a six to nine month process. Then there would be final appoval. So even fast tracked it will not be in place for next year. This is not a rando soccer club that can just change everything on the fly. This (both ECNL asnd its governing boards) is a corporate entity that follows process and procedures. This is a long way from done.

I doubt it will ever get done as the votes are not there. Could ECNL something on its own? Sure but they will not. They need to act as mostly one or the next time they want something they will not get it.

As has been previously pointed out, AYSO just moved from SY to BY a couple of years ago. The idea that USYS would get on board when one of its biggest members was dragged across the finish line recently by USYS to comply with USSF and FIFA only to be totally undermined by USYS to help out ECNL (not apples to apples competitor to AYSO, but a competitor league none the less) is a bit fantastical of a proposition.

I can see the argument for mid and low tier competitive soccer and rec soccer to by SY. I have a hard time seeing the logic as one climbs the pyramid into pools that should be feeding YNTs, College and Pro ranks - those are the tiers that most need alignment to international standard and benchmarking.

USSF has not enforced its 2016 shift to BY for many rec programs for just that reason. But what a mess it would create it MLSN and GA were BY and ECNL SY for evaluating results and data when looking at pools for college, pools for YNG, pools for pros. I can’t believe USSF would allow that - it’s bad for the overall game and it’s bad for our ability to compete at the very highest levels.

It sounds like the majority of soccer people understand this would really make things messy but believe SY is better for the MAJORITY of youth players. And changing is worth a one time disruption to get this right.

The primary focus should not be what’s best for the national team pool. As they are very much the minority of overall soccer players.

But I actually don’t think it’s a bad thing and MLSN and GA SHOULD be allowed to stay birth year. Having a one size fits all for so many kids I don’t think is the right approach either.

You understand the soccer pyramid right? You get how it is supposed to function right?

The pyramid is meant to show people what the highest leagues and levels of play in the US are. Look at your precious pyramid the largest sections towards the bottom and make up the vast majority. Maybe you should double check who that is.