ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

What does college soccer has anything to do with BY vs SY ??

College sports has no age limit/cutoff, only has years of eligibility, usually 4 years within a 5 year window.

There are some 25 year old freshman out there just starting college soccer, and will use up their eligibility before turning 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

Also:

"As Sportico has reported, the sport's national governing body has had discussions with the Big Ten and ACC since mid-2024 on ways to launch a pilot program for year-round men's soccer.

"I think we are at a point in time where it behooves everybody to be open-minded about opportunities that make sense on a sport-by-sport basis," Chad Hawley, the Big Ten's senior vice president for policy, said in a telephone interview earlier this year.

U.S. Soccer, newly bolstered by contributions from billionaire donors, has been weighing a plan to invest millions of dollars annually into the initiative."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/college-try-u-s-soccer-takes-first-steps-to-reboot-ncaa-game/ar-AA1Gslip

Any guesses on how much it would cost to play on these college branded teams? $5k, $10k? It is going to be pricey for kids already having to pay for college. D3 looking better and better as a goal.

I understand what makes sense at a high level. Which is to implement single league that has both college and 2nd tier pro teams. I dont understand how the details would work with scholorships involved and $$$ players getting paid.

P2P makes more business sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Jan-Jily tend to become 2 and teamers, don't get good coaches, have less practices, less incentives to pay for extra lessons and more incentives to find another sport to also play.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the MLS academy folks would consider partnerships with NCAA schools from the major confrences so kids could attend school while playing under the MLS flag. Something like University of Texas / Austin FC, Northwestern/Chicago Fire, Seattle Sounders University of Washington and so on.

Could be a win win as kids get a real education and schools get much more rev from TV with an MLS partnership in local markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

Spoiler alert, the p2p clubs already do. And have in house leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

What does college soccer has anything to do with BY vs SY ??

College sports has no age limit/cutoff, only has years of eligibility, usually 4 years within a 5 year window.

There are some 25 year old freshman out there just starting college soccer, and will use up their eligibility before turning 30.

You just made an argument for no change to seasonal year. 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

What does college soccer has anything to do with BY vs SY ??

College sports has no age limit/cutoff, only has years of eligibility, usually 4 years within a 5 year window.

There are some 25 year old freshman out there just starting college soccer, and will use up their eligibility before turning 30.

You just made an argument for no change to seasonal year. 🤣

It matters for recruiting. SY also reduces trapped players in 8th and 12th grades. No one advocating for SY is doing it because age groupings matter in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

What does college soccer has anything to do with BY vs SY ??

College sports has no age limit/cutoff, only has years of eligibility, usually 4 years within a 5 year window.

There are some 25 year old freshman out there just starting college soccer, and will use up their eligibility before turning 30.

You just made an argument for no change to seasonal year. 🤣

It matters for recruiting. SY also reduces trapped players in 8th and 12th grades. No one advocating for SY is doing it because age groupings matter in college.

It doesn’t matter for recruiting. See European recruits playing in NCAA and past decade of recruiting.

You also are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

The ONLY known advantage is the reduction of trapped players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to make more sense yet?

NCAA wants out of college soccer and is giving it to US Soccer. This is likely why MLSN and GA arent commenting on. BY v SY.

What does college soccer has anything to do with BY vs SY ??

College sports has no age limit/cutoff, only has years of eligibility, usually 4 years within a 5 year window.

There are some 25 year old freshman out there just starting college soccer, and will use up their eligibility before turning 30.

You just made an argument for no change to seasonal year. 🤣

How so ?? Youth soccer and college soccer are separate entities. Majority of youth players don't move on to play college ball.

I was referring to the claim that USSF is taking over college soccer and making it BY. It is simply nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

Do they, tho? I guess you're thinking there won't be enough strong Jan-July players, because of RAE. Seems logical, but maybe feeder clubs think about birth month differently if they want to become a pipeline to top-tier BY leagues. Change the brass ring and you maybe change how things are done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

Do they, tho? I guess you're thinking there won't be enough strong Jan-July players, because of RAE. Seems logical, but maybe feeder clubs think about birth month differently if they want to become a pipeline to top-tier BY leagues. Change the brass ring and you maybe change how things are done.

August-December kids will start in a SY system as that is what all ulittle leagues will be. After u11, these kids will have to skip to u13 to transition to the mlsnext BY system. They will be competing with Jan-July kids who have been playing u12.

I agree with you, the only way this works is if mlsnext clubs start BY at u8. No club wants to deal with this transition between u11 and u13 every year going forward. If mlsnext stays BY on its own, it will be very interesting to see how clubs are going to handle it.

[Anonymous]

Maybe MLSN wants to stay BY so their SY opponents have an advantage which would make things in more even from a competiton perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

Spoiler alert, the p2p clubs already do. And have in house leagues.

No, travel soccer starts at U8. Profit clubs have house leagues above as a cash cow, not to identify kids and munis have rec leagues as a community service. Real tou

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is extremely weird to call Tier 2 “academy” when they revolve their season around HS soccer. Such an obvious marketing gimmick. Do they think parents are that stupid? Oh right, they are.

Extremely weird? It’s actually pretty normal in youth sports. “Academy” used to mean something specific. Now it just tantamount to “program.” It’s marketing at this point.

Substituting the ever-so-prominent “MLS Academy” name, that so many Dads on here drool over, and imparting it to their second tier league, is weird yes. In fact it is blatantly deceitful because it used to be the pinnacle of what parents could tell others and now it means the opposite. It also forces those same dips*!t parents to say homegrown which is in and of itself self a weird name .

It's going to be really interesting if MLSN/GA stays BY.

True. Would be a very strange business decision on their part but could be the best thing for p2p honestly as it gives true space for an SY league like ECNL . But from a national standpoint, I think it hampers developing and determining the best players as the two leagues would play each other almost never.

I think it's strange people don't understand why they would and who believe SY is the end all be all.

Not a BY-Stan, but this is 100% spot on. The reasons to not change are glaringly clear.

I think the denial is likely from girls’ parents, and is a response to the obvious risk ECNL is taking in an ALMOST all or nothing gamble to make its boys side competitive with the talent draw of MLSN.

If MLSN switches, it would force GA to also switch, which gives relief to the ECNL girls’ parents. Probably also explains the “Trish-dude.”

Once RAE is set to Aug-Dec kids, at U13 it will be tough for MLSN to identify players and be smart enough to pick the new players that could take advantage of RAE in a BY set up. MLSNs best chance would be to get their leagues down to about U10 to develop a BY ecosystem. But with DCU canning U14, they have a tough bridge to get from 8 year olds in BY aiming for the goal of free play at U15, playing true academy ball, with expensive online school to boot. Essentially MLSN P2P clubs will have to pick the best 8 year olds and will have a tough time cherry picking kids that have always played under an SY system. Kids won't love going from being a star in SY at the best positions to riding the pine and getting the left over or utility positions one year up in BY.

The holy grail is increasing participation with SY AND keeping enough BY around to have strong players from all birth months of the calendar. Also, why would it be considered really playing up a whole lot if Aug-Dec is only playing with Jan-July from the same birth year? They'd be the same age!

Because they would have to transition from a SY system to a BY system and skip an age group to do so. Only way this works is if mlsnext clubs have their own leagues and systems starting at u8.

Do they, tho? I guess you're thinking there won't be enough strong Jan-July players, because of RAE. Seems logical, but maybe feeder clubs think about birth month differently if they want to become a pipeline to top-tier BY leagues. Change the brass ring and you maybe change how things are done.

August-December kids will start in a SY system as that is what all ulittle leagues will be. After u11, these kids will have to skip to u13 to transition to the mlsnext BY system. They will be competing with Jan-July kids who have been playing u12.

I agree with you, the only way this works is if mlsnext clubs start BY at u8. No club wants to deal with this transition between u11 and u13 every year going forward. If mlsnext stays BY on its own, it will be very interesting to see how clubs are going to handle it.

And by compete I mean aug-dec u11 players will compete with Jan-July u12 players from their same club for spots on the u13 team.