ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Nobody is making the argument about “what’s better for my kid” except the SY people. They claim every person that argues against the change is a Q1 parent.

The reality is that it just doesn’t matter except at the highest level, where alignment internationally ACTUALLY DOES matter. Then the SY people, the same ones who are obsessed with their kid being given better ECNL opportunities via age-cutoff changes, rush in to say “well ECNL doesn’t really focus on anything but college.” Which is a total load of bull. On the girls side 70%+ of the YNT is ECNL, and even higher % of the pros that were post DA are ECNL. On the boys side, it’s different, but ECNL is definately part of the international vertical.

Nobody cares what Rec does. Rec is community based, it’s run by some leagues, and clubs, but it’s also run by towns, cities and counties. USSF doesn’t force them to adhere to BY because it’s about having fun and being active. BUT! Rec feeds into competitive.

So you get to Challenge or Classic leagues. Some challenge are BY, some are SY. Most Classic leagues are state association led, so they run through USYS and because you have state cups, etc, they need uniformity there. Doesn’t matter if it’s BY or SY thought tbh, but currently they’re BY. Classic is sort of “fun travel.”

Then you get into the NPLs and DPL and the beginning of national leagues. Now in theory, these should be serious competition for kids with big dreams of playing in college and beyond. Used to be the case, no longer is. That said, here is where a serious consideration of International alignment out to be discussed. That said, a lot of these players DO make up the majority of HS teams - so fine, SY makes sense. ECRL is really the tip of the pyramid in this tier.

Then you get to the elite tiers, MLSN, GA and ECNL. These are where the very best kids should be competing. This is where an international alignment ought to mandatory because this small pool of maybe 10k boys and girls out of a 3 million kid pyramid is the feed stock for, now with NIL a reality, professional paid soccer (college is no exception now with NIL and colleges ability to pay athletes).

That’s the problem and why I think BY for everyone isn’t best. Which is what most soccer operators know as well.

Let GA and MlSN stay birth year I don’t believe we should have a one party system. Let the open market and parents decide what’s best for their kids.

Then the clubs with girls in one league and boys in the other will cause some more headaches…

God forbid a club has to do a little extra work once in a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh. So it’s just a graphic…my bad….

Here I thought it was how our leagues and tiers build on each other with the foundation being grassroots, which creates the entry point for all of soccer. My mistake. I guess the FA’s pyramid is just a graphic too. I wonder why all the US Soccer hatters point to Europe as the model then if they’re just doing graphics instead of foundational funnels too.

You’re assuming what’s best for grass-root kids is what’s best for a national team player. Which we both know isn’t true. Also the food pyramid said cereal was better for you that red meat so obviously a made up pyramid isn’t always the answer either.

No… it at all. That’s the point of it being a pyramid!

How are you all parents of ECNL kids and have no clue how this works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Nobody is making the argument about “what’s better for my kid” except the SY people. They claim every person that argues against the change is a Q1 parent.

The reality is that it just doesn’t matter except at the highest level, where alignment internationally ACTUALLY DOES matter. Then the SY people, the same ones who are obsessed with their kid being given better ECNL opportunities via age-cutoff changes, rush in to say “well ECNL doesn’t really focus on anything but college.” Which is a total load of bull. On the girls side 70%+ of the YNT is ECNL, and even higher % of the pros that were post DA are ECNL. On the boys side, it’s different, but ECNL is definately part of the international vertical.

Nobody cares what Rec does. Rec is community based, it’s run by some leagues, and clubs, but it’s also run by towns, cities and counties. USSF doesn’t force them to adhere to BY because it’s about having fun and being active. BUT! Rec feeds into competitive.

So you get to Challenge or Classic leagues. Some challenge are BY, some are SY. Most Classic leagues are state association led, so they run through USYS and because you have state cups, etc, they need uniformity there. Doesn’t matter if it’s BY or SY thought tbh, but currently they’re BY. Classic is sort of “fun travel.”

Then you get into the NPLs and DPL and the beginning of national leagues. Now in theory, these should be serious competition for kids with big dreams of playing in college and beyond. Used to be the case, no longer is. That said, here is where a serious consideration of International alignment out to be discussed. That said, a lot of these players DO make up the majority of HS teams - so fine, SY makes sense. ECRL is really the tip of the pyramid in this tier.

Then you get to the elite tiers, MLSN, GA and ECNL. These are where the very best kids should be competing. This is where an international alignment ought to mandatory because this small pool of maybe 10k boys and girls out of a 3 million kid pyramid is the feed stock for, now with NIL a reality, professional paid soccer (college is no exception now with NIL and colleges ability to pay athletes).

If the lowest levels are SY, and the highest levels are BY, shouldn't the leagues get to decide for themselves which side of that divide they are on in the pyramid? MLSN, GA, and ECNL should decide for themselves. USSF should make its recommendations and issue guidelines with factors to consider, and then leave it to the leagues to run themselves. That's essentially how the USSF bylaws and policies read. Members must follow bylaws and policies. Player development initiatives are recommendations from the technical committee.

You realize the categorical error you made right? You can’t let the highest levels decide for themselves. The highest levels are where you need the most boundaries.

No error. I simply disagree that USSF should get to decide this for any member. USSF has its own interest here, which may be at odds with the interest of an individual league, even the ones at the top. I'm saying USSF needs to convince them to adopt BY, not force it on them. MLSN would likely be convinced and use BY. ECNL and GA would likely not, and say "we have more interest in the college pathway than international play, but we will happily change to BY when that changes." You're starting with the USSF position that youth national teams are the top priority for the whole system, and the rest of the pyramid can only operate as they wish so long as they don't interfere with that single priority.

Where did I say that YNTs are the top priority…I didn’t.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The idea you propose that the National Federation should have no control or input on the leagues is the most telling part of your post. 1) you don’t understand football and 2) you’re not concern about football.

But with both of your responses so far, I don’t think you’re actually discussing in good faith.

Well argued. I'm an idiot, don't know anything about soccer, not in good faith...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Nobody is making the argument about “what’s better for my kid” except the SY people. They claim every person that argues against the change is a Q1 parent.

The reality is that it just doesn’t matter except at the highest level, where alignment internationally ACTUALLY DOES matter. Then the SY people, the same ones who are obsessed with their kid being given better ECNL opportunities via age-cutoff changes, rush in to say “well ECNL doesn’t really focus on anything but college.” Which is a total load of bull. On the girls side 70%+ of the YNT is ECNL, and even higher % of the pros that were post DA are ECNL. On the boys side, it’s different, but ECNL is definately part of the international vertical.

Nobody cares what Rec does. Rec is community based, it’s run by some leagues, and clubs, but it’s also run by towns, cities and counties. USSF doesn’t force them to adhere to BY because it’s about having fun and being active. BUT! Rec feeds into competitive.

So you get to Challenge or Classic leagues. Some challenge are BY, some are SY. Most Classic leagues are state association led, so they run through USYS and because you have state cups, etc, they need uniformity there. Doesn’t matter if it’s BY or SY thought tbh, but currently they’re BY. Classic is sort of “fun travel.”

Then you get into the NPLs and DPL and the beginning of national leagues. Now in theory, these should be serious competition for kids with big dreams of playing in college and beyond. Used to be the case, no longer is. That said, here is where a serious consideration of International alignment out to be discussed. That said, a lot of these players DO make up the majority of HS teams - so fine, SY makes sense. ECRL is really the tip of the pyramid in this tier.

Then you get to the elite tiers, MLSN, GA and ECNL. These are where the very best kids should be competing. This is where an international alignment ought to mandatory because this small pool of maybe 10k boys and girls out of a 3 million kid pyramid is the feed stock for, now with NIL a reality, professional paid soccer (college is no exception now with NIL and colleges ability to pay athletes).

If the lowest levels are SY, and the highest levels are BY, shouldn't the leagues get to decide for themselves which side of that divide they are on in the pyramid? MLSN, GA, and ECNL should decide for themselves. USSF should make its recommendations and issue guidelines with factors to consider, and then leave it to the leagues to run themselves. That's essentially how the USSF bylaws and policies read. Members must follow bylaws and policies. Player development initiatives are recommendations from the technical committee.

You realize the categorical error you made right? You can’t let the highest levels decide for themselves. The highest levels are where you need the most boundaries.

No error. I simply disagree that USSF should get to decide this for any member. USSF has its own interest here, which may be at odds with the interest of an individual league, even the ones at the top. I'm saying USSF needs to convince them to adopt BY, not force it on them. MLSN would likely be convinced and use BY. ECNL and GA would likely not, and say "we have more interest in the college pathway than international play, but we will happily change to BY when that changes." You're starting with the USSF position that youth national teams are the top priority for the whole system, and the rest of the pyramid can only operate as they wish so long as they don't interfere with that single priority.

Where did I say that YNTs are the top priority…I didn’t.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The idea you propose that the National Federation should have no control or input on the leagues is the most telling part of your post. 1) you don’t understand football and 2) you’re not concern about football.

But with both of your responses so far, I don’t think you’re actually discussing in good faith.

Well argued. I'm an idiot, don't know anything about soccer, not in good faith...

Big of you to admit it. Props!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I can agree with this. In the end we will see what the soccer overlords decide and live with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People with kid Jan to July want BY Aug to Dec want school year why cant we just say openly we want what’s best for our kids. Because that’s what is true.

If the governing bodies decide to stay with BY or SY who cares? Just pick something based on what’s best for kids and keep it. No flip flopping.

That’s not true. There are plenty of parents in Q1 & 2 who don’t care, and plenty of parents in Q3&4 who don’t want a change because their kids is flourishing.

The only people who want a change are the Q 3 / 4 parents who’s kids are bubble or are on the outside looking in.

I can agree with this. In the end we will see what the soccer overlords decide and live with it.

Yep and life will go on.

[Anonymous]

If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

[Anonymous]

I think the general unease is that trapped players (many of them starters on their current team) would displace players on the younger team...and parents are on edge about it. ECNL teams especially should technically get stronger from this change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the general unease is that trapped players (many of them starters on their current team) would displace players on the younger team...and parents are on edge about it. ECNL teams especially should technically get stronger from this change.

But each team will probably lose a few as well as gain a few. Of course, there will be teams that gain more than they lose, or lose more than they gain, but on average it will wash each other out and the end result will be marginal. People are making way too much out of this. Whatever it is players, teams, clubs will adjust just as they did before.

[Anonymous]

Changes that are no different than the gain a few and lose a few every year at tryouts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the general unease is that trapped players (many of them starters on their current team) would displace players on the younger team...and parents are on edge about it. ECNL teams especially should technically get stronger from this change.

Parents of top tier players are performing mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion which best suits their kid. Parents of kids with no top tier aspirations are looking at the whole conversation saying, "You are all psychos - of course it should change to SY to give millions of kids a better experience."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this change was made, is th egeneral sense that the caliber of teams would overall be diminished a bit by the demotion of the trapped players (presumably good enough to be on their current team) down a year and they are replaced by lesser caliber players of the school year?
Or is it kinda a wash?

Fair question, teams would be slightly bigger/faster/experienced (so better) because they could have slightly older kids. But it wouldn't of course actually make the players better in the short term.

Longer term the impact on youth soccer participation (expected to increase or at least stem the decline), mostly eliminating trapped players and mostly aligning Q4 players with their college recruitment class are expected to be net positives. And longer term not aligning youth soccer age categories with international standards is believed to make it difficult for youth national teams discover players.

You don’t understand this at all. Teams will not be bigger / stronger / faster due to an age cut-off change. It won’t even help trapped players currently in ECNL become bigger / stronger / faster on their teams. It won’t help any kid to become bigger / stronger / faster.

What it will possibly do, is allow some Q3/4 kids swap their maturation rate with some Q1/2 kids.

And it possibly could help current Q3/4 kids in 12th grade who are not current college prospects to get a bit more exposure to coaches and maybe eek out a roster spot.

[Anonymous]

Haha swap their maturation rate? Q3/4 kids on ECNL teams are currently playing kids bigger/faster and often stronger than them. They drop an age group and that experience will benefit that younger team.