ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an outline from our club that MLSN 1 and 2 will be staying BY come 2026 and other platforms within the club will be SY 8/1.

I have been on the no way MLSN can stay BY train, but it seems like a done deal that they will in fact stay BY.

We are an MLS/GA club and getting similar guidance. MLS stays 1-1 and GA goes 8-1.

Was the outline from your hotline to Trish? Nice try. Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an outline from our club that MLSN 1 and 2 will be staying BY come 2026 and other platforms within the club will be SY 8/1.

I have been on the no way MLSN can stay BY train, but it seems like a done deal that they will in fact stay BY.

That’s very concerning to me as a parent of a child with a fall birthday. Not that mlsnext isn’t changing but the possibility of having to skip u12 because u8-u12 will be 8/1. Before anyone says “just play up,” that isn’t something that is done at our club except for extremely rare occasions. Will be anxious as to how our club will handle it.

This is exactly why US soccer should have made a universal decision. 1/1 or 8/1… who cares. This is going to be a disaster.

No its not.

You'll complain +nobody will care.

MLSN will still be the top tier for youth boys soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an outline from our club that MLSN 1 and 2 will be staying BY come 2026 and other platforms within the club will be SY 8/1.

I have been on the no way MLSN can stay BY train, but it seems like a done deal that they will in fact stay BY.

We are an MLS/GA club and getting similar guidance. MLS stays 1-1 and GA goes 8-1.

Was the outline from your hotline to Trish? Nice try. Lol

Exactly, you'd think this guy would eventually get embarrassed from being wrong so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GA goes SY without a doubt; they can’t risk standing alone. MLSN could risk it but do they want to reduce their potential player pool and make life difficult for clubs?

People keep saying this. But it’s just not true, and it’s not what GA argued for with USSF when this was in committee.

GA is better off being aligned with MLS, international standards and with YNTs. It’s how they differentiate from ECNL.

There is ZERO risk to GA with no change, and big potential competitive upside after ECNL’s change to SY.

If you can’t see that, you’re either too obtuse, too biased, or too insecure about your DD’s opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an outline from our club that MLSN 1 and 2 will be staying BY come 2026 and other platforms within the club will be SY 8/1.

I have been on the no way MLSN can stay BY train, but it seems like a done deal that they will in fact stay BY.

That’s very concerning to me as a parent of a child with a fall birthday. Not that mlsnext isn’t changing but the possibility of having to skip u12 because u8-u12 will be 8/1. Before anyone says “just play up,” that isn’t something that is done at our club except for extremely rare occasions. Will be anxious as to how our club will handle it.

This is exactly why US soccer should have made a universal decision. 1/1 or 8/1… who cares. This is going to be a disaster.

No its not.

You'll complain +nobody will care.

MLSN will still be the top tier for youth boys soccer.

It will be a disaster for the majority of August-December birthdays going forward. They were always at a disadvantage being the back half of the birth year and now will have to skip a year to play mlsnext. This group would have been much better off if all of youth soccer stayed 1/1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Got an outline from our club that MLSN 1 and 2 will be staying BY come 2026 and other platforms within the club will be SY 8/1.

I have been on the no way MLSN can stay BY train, but it seems like a done deal that they will in fact stay BY.

That’s very concerning to me as a parent of a child with a fall birthday. Not that mlsnext isn’t changing but the possibility of having to skip u12 because u8-u12 will be 8/1. Before anyone says “just play up,” that isn’t something that is done at our club except for extremely rare occasions. Will be anxious as to how our club will handle it.

This is exactly why US soccer should have made a universal decision. 1/1 or 8/1… who cares. This is going to be a disaster.

No its not.

You'll complain +nobody will care.

MLSN will still be the top tier for youth boys soccer.

It will be a disaster for the majority of August-December birthdays going forward. They were always at a disadvantage being the back half of the birth year and now will have to skip a year to play mlsnext. This group would have been much better off if all of youth soccer stayed 1/1.

Give me a break.

With biobanding it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA goes SY without a doubt; they can’t risk standing alone. MLSN could risk it but do they want to reduce their potential player pool and make life difficult for clubs?

People keep saying this. But it’s just not true, and it’s not what GA argued for with USSF when this was in committee.

GA is better off being aligned with MLS, international standards and with YNTs. It’s how they differentiate from ECNL.

There is ZERO risk to GA with no change, and big potential competitive upside after ECNL’s change to SY.

If you can’t see that, you’re either too obtuse, too biased, or too insecure about your DD’s opportunities.

Aligned with MLS how, exactly? What does that even mean? This is youth soccer. Not professional soccer. They’re going to go SY like their competition (this is a business!), the other youth leagues. If you can’t see that then, well, I guess you’re too obtuse, biased, or too insecure about your own DD’s opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA goes SY without a doubt; they can’t risk standing alone. MLSN could risk it but do they want to reduce their potential player pool and make life difficult for clubs?

People keep saying this. But it’s just not true, and it’s not what GA argued for with USSF when this was in committee.

GA is better off being aligned with MLS, international standards and with YNTs. It’s how they differentiate from ECNL.

There is ZERO risk to GA with no change, and big potential competitive upside after ECNL’s change to SY.

If you can’t see that, you’re either too obtuse, too biased, or too insecure about your DD’s opportunities.

Aligned with MLS how, exactly? What does that even mean? This is youth soccer. Not professional soccer. They’re going to go SY like their competition (this is a business!), the other youth leagues. If you can’t see that then, well, I guess you’re too obtuse, biased, or too insecure about your own DD’s opportunities.

GA is a second tier league compared to ecnl but becomes a good option for January - July birthdays if they stay BY and ecnl goes SY.

Similarly, ecnl is a second tier league compared to mlsnext and becomes a good option for August-December birthdays if they go SY and mlsnext stays BY.

Those of us who have been around youth soccer for a long time know that leagues come and go like that. Just because a league is top now doesn’t mean it will even be in existence in 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA goes SY without a doubt; they can’t risk standing alone. MLSN could risk it but do they want to reduce their potential player pool and make life difficult for clubs?

People keep saying this. But it’s just not true, and it’s not what GA argued for with USSF when this was in committee.

GA is better off being aligned with MLS, international standards and with YNTs. It’s how they differentiate from ECNL.

There is ZERO risk to GA with no change, and big potential competitive upside after ECNL’s change to SY.

If you can’t see that, you’re either too obtuse, too biased, or too insecure about your DD’s opportunities.

Aligned with MLS how, exactly? What does that even mean? This is youth soccer. Not professional soccer. They’re going to go SY like their competition (this is a business!), the other youth leagues. If you can’t see that then, well, I guess you’re too obtuse, biased, or too insecure about your own DD’s opportunities.

MLSN is what I meant.

But your response fell nicely into one of my buckets. Appreciate the hat tip.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like lots of wishcasting going on for both sides; all or nothing thinking too. If I’m ECNL, I am hoping MLSN stays BY as it differentiates them and gives a landing pad to many of the A team kids up to u12, who have received the RAE benefits (better coaching and competition). MLSN clubs will have to resift through mostly B team kids come u13. Not the end of the world but those clubs could lose many players they have invested a lot in over the years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA goes SY without a doubt; they can’t risk standing alone. MLSN could risk it but do they want to reduce their potential player pool and make life difficult for clubs?

People keep saying this. But it’s just not true, and it’s not what GA argued for with USSF when this was in committee.

GA is better off being aligned with MLS, international standards and with YNTs. It’s how they differentiate from ECNL.

There is ZERO risk to GA with no change, and big potential competitive upside after ECNL’s change to SY.

If you can’t see that, you’re either too obtuse, too biased, or too insecure about your DD’s opportunities.

Aligned with MLS how, exactly? What does that even mean? This is youth soccer. Not professional soccer. They’re going to go SY like their competition (this is a business!), the other youth leagues. If you can’t see that then, well, I guess you’re too obtuse, biased, or too insecure about your own DD’s opportunities.

“This is a business” is exactly why GA won’t change and “follow” ECNL. What a dunce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like lots of wishcasting going on for both sides; all or nothing thinking too. If I’m ECNL, I am hoping MLSN stays BY as it differentiates them and gives a landing pad to many of the A team kids up to u12, who have received the RAE benefits (better coaching and competition). MLSN clubs will have to resift through mostly B team kids come u13. Not the end of the world but those clubs could lose many players they have invested a lot in over the years.

Now take the same logic and apply it to the girls side. 😉

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like lots of wishcasting going on for both sides; all or nothing thinking too. If I’m ECNL, I am hoping MLSN stays BY as it differentiates them and gives a landing pad to many of the A team kids up to u12, who have received the RAE benefits (better coaching and competition). MLSN clubs will have to resift through mostly B team kids come u13. Not the end of the world but those clubs could lose many players they have invested a lot in over the years.

Now take the same logic and apply it to the girls side. 😉

The difference is with girls theres no Academy teams (yet).

Which means all GA has to do highlight the top performing clubs (already happening) and bring over top ECNL clubs (already happening)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like lots of wishcasting going on for both sides; all or nothing thinking too. If I’m ECNL, I am hoping MLSN stays BY as it differentiates them and gives a landing pad to many of the A team kids up to u12, who have received the RAE benefits (better coaching and competition). MLSN clubs will have to resift through mostly B team kids come u13. Not the end of the world but those clubs could lose many players they have invested a lot in over the years.

Now take the same logic and apply it to the girls side. 😉

Exactly. GA has to follow ECNL or risk falling further behind. The gap between ECNL and GA is much wider than the gap between MLSN and ECNL on the boys side.

If GA doesnt then a top Q3 or Q4 (best players in the grade) will jump to ECNL in a heartbeat. And maybe some of the bench Q1 and Q2 ECNL will move to GA but who cares? Those are not the players making a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like lots of wishcasting going on for both sides; all or nothing thinking too. If I’m ECNL, I am hoping MLSN stays BY as it differentiates them and gives a landing pad to many of the A team kids up to u12, who have received the RAE benefits (better coaching and competition). MLSN clubs will have to resift through mostly B team kids come u13. Not the end of the world but those clubs could lose many players they have invested a lot in over the years.

Possibly. I just think MLSNext clubs are toeing the line to give the appearance that existing teams will not break up, which is what most parents and kids care about. End of the day there are not enough upsides for them to stand alone as BY and alienate the player pool. Plenty of rich parents will still pay and they’ll fill rosters but they’ll get a higher proportion of kids that go there because of their BY order rather than being an overall top player.