ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA is going SY. So is Mlsn. New topic please

For sure. At the club leadership level we know having two registration systems is not doable and the profound assumption is Mlsn/ga will fall in line. However, we are instructed to point to no official word, which does help deflect any backlash on us and gives appearance that nothing May change for the current teams.

Is this what Trish the Comish told you through your imagination?

You've already made 2 countdown predictions that didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA is going SY. So is Mlsn. New topic please

For sure. At the club leadership level we know having two registration systems is not doable and the profound assumption is Mlsn/ga will fall in line. However, we are instructed to point to no official word, which does help deflect any backlash on us and gives appearance that nothing May change for the current teams.

Yes, that's the exact vibe I got after asking my club DOC (big club in west coast with 120+ teams) , he said he is "99.9% sure they are switching", without elaborating on it. And I didn't want to press him further, figured must be something he can't fully disclose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA is going SY. So is Mlsn. New topic please

For sure. At the club leadership level we know having two registration systems is not doable and the profound assumption is Mlsn/ga will fall in line. However, we are instructed to point to no official word, which does help deflect any backlash on us and gives appearance that nothing May change for the current teams.

Yes, that's the exact vibe I got after asking my club DOC (big club in west coast with 120+ teams) , he said he is "99.9% sure they are switching", without elaborating on it. And I didn't want to press him further, figured must be something he can't fully disclose.

100% dont believe what you're writing..

Theres only one west coast GA club with 120+ teans and the DOC or Club Owners haven't said anything.

But its fun to watch you make things up. You should make another prediction based on a date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA is going SY. So is Mlsn. New topic please

For sure. At the club leadership level we know having two registration systems is not doable and the profound assumption is Mlsn/ga will fall in line. However, we are instructed to point to no official word, which does help deflect any backlash on us and gives appearance that nothing May change for the current teams.

Yes, that's the exact vibe I got after asking my club DOC (big club in west coast with 120+ teams) , he said he is "99.9% sure they are switching", without elaborating on it. And I didn't want to press him further, figured must be something he can't fully disclose.

100% dont believe what you're writing..

Theres only one west coast GA club with 120+ teans and the DOC or Club Owners haven't said anything.

But its fun to watch you make things up. You should make another prediction based on a date.

Is there a BY parent supporting group out there that you should be joining ? So people like you can continue to believe in whatever you want to believe, and not listen to stuff that you don't want to hear.

I am not here to make you believe in anything. Just trying to share info with others who might be interested.

And if you have basic reading comprehension skill, my posts points to the likelihood that GA/MSLN don't want the clubs to jump the gun and making announcement. If my club management has made official announcement, then they wouldn't be following the instruction from leagues, would they ??

(btw, my club, like most youth soccer clubs, are non profits, there are no "club owners" )

[Anonymous]

Posted on my local PDP website

Note: Recommendation forms for regional players sent to club directors on June 18th 2025

Age Groups: U12-U14 (2014,2013,2012,2011)

*2011 Eighth grade only

Season: August – June

Overview: This group will train one time per month in each region. Trainings will be on Mondays. Selected players will get the opportunity to participate in playdates against other regions.

Recommendation: Through DOC recommendation during window (July) or by being scouted by PDP staff.

Age Groups:

U15 State Pool (2011 & 2010)

U16 State Pool (2010 & 2009 )

U18 State Pool (2009 & 2008 )

*2008 Juniors only



Season: September – June

Recommendation: Scouted by PDP staff and performance at Regional PDP trainings.

Overview:

During the fall the state pool group will be split into inter-regional groups and will train one time a month at different locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re doing lot of mental gymnastics to extrapolate how this US soccer/NCAA white paper somehow argues for BY cutoffs in youth soccer. But you can relax: I’m sure your July kid will make friends on an MLSN tier 2 team next year.

Mental gymnastics? What does the first line of the US Soccer link say. Here I'll C+P it for you.

'U.S. Soccer Launches Committee to Provide Recommendations for the Future Success of Men’s and Women’s College Soccer"

And the power conferences then promptly give their middle fingers to those "recommendations"

They basically run college football and basketball, with NCAA as a token governing body, what makes you think they would give a crap to USSF ?

Soccer isn't exactly the revenue generator like the bigger sports. If anything, the USSF would help take it off their hands.

The colleges will not let the program be taken off their hands. They would close soccer down first.

I’m telling you though BY minus Fall semester guy is onto something here. If only those handful of u19 college recruits that start in the Spring semester would have had their age cutoff align with BY during their youth soccer days, MLS would have more star players AND they could have played internationally, AND probably started on our US national team. None of this could have happened if their age cutoff in youth soccer was SY. It honestly makes sense when you put it all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA is going SY. So is Mlsn. New topic please

For sure. At the club leadership level we know having two registration systems is not doable and the profound assumption is Mlsn/ga will fall in line. However, we are instructed to point to no official word, which does help deflect any backlash on us and gives appearance that nothing May change for the current teams.

Yes, that's the exact vibe I got after asking my club DOC (big club in west coast with 120+ teams) , he said he is "99.9% sure they are switching", without elaborating on it. And I didn't want to press him further, figured must be something he can't fully disclose.

It’s the same story I’ve heard from our ECNL club and other parents from MLSN clubs nearby. It’s also going to disrupt teams and club administrators do not want to go there either, until they need to. Above all, clubs don’t want to lose players (customers). In this case would be to ECNL via aug-dec or even Jan-mar kids that don’t want their team broken up and were contemplating a move anyway. But also some May to jul parents at ECNL maybe thinking if MLSN stays BY they could switch. Clubs don’t want any of those floodgates to start opening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re doing lot of mental gymnastics to extrapolate how this US soccer/NCAA white paper somehow argues for BY cutoffs in youth soccer. But you can relax: I’m sure your July kid will make friends on an MLSN tier 2 team next year.

Mental gymnastics? What does the first line of the US Soccer link say. Here I'll C+P it for you.

'U.S. Soccer Launches Committee to Provide Recommendations for the Future Success of Men’s and Women’s College Soccer"

And the power conferences then promptly give their middle fingers to those "recommendations"

They basically run college football and basketball, with NCAA as a token governing body, what makes you think they would give a crap to USSF ?

Soccer isn't exactly the revenue generator like the bigger sports. If anything, the USSF would help take it off their hands.

The colleges will not let the program be taken off their hands. They would close soccer down first.

I’m telling you though BY minus Fall semester guy is onto something here. If only those handful of u19 college recruits that start in the Spring semester would have had their age cutoff align with BY during their youth soccer days, MLS would have more star players AND they could have played internationally, AND probably started on our US national team. None of this could have happened if their age cutoff in youth soccer was SY. It honestly makes sense when you put it all together.

The age cutoff has an impact in determining who makes it. But it is a zero summer game so staying BY doesn't create more stars. With lower participation at the younger ages in BY vs SY, BY creates slightly fewer stars in theory. Having BY and SY coexist in peace and harmony is probably a pipe dream but again in theory would create more stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You’re doing lot of mental gymnastics to extrapolate how this US soccer/NCAA white paper somehow argues for BY cutoffs in youth soccer. But you can relax: I’m sure your July kid will make friends on an MLSN tier 2 team next year.

Mental gymnastics? What does the first line of the US Soccer link say. Here I'll C+P it for you.

'U.S. Soccer Launches Committee to Provide Recommendations for the Future Success of Men’s and Women’s College Soccer"

And the power conferences then promptly give their middle fingers to those "recommendations"

They basically run college football and basketball, with NCAA as a token governing body, what makes you think they would give a crap to USSF ?

Soccer isn't exactly the revenue generator like the bigger sports. If anything, the USSF would help take it off their hands.

The colleges will not let the program be taken off their hands. They would close soccer down first.

I’m telling you though BY minus Fall semester guy is onto something here. If only those handful of u19 college recruits that start in the Spring semester would have had their age cutoff align with BY during their youth soccer days, MLS would have more star players AND they could have played internationally, AND probably started on our US national team. None of this could have happened if their age cutoff in youth soccer was SY. It honestly makes sense when you put it all together.

The age cutoff has an impact in determining who makes it. But it is a zero summer game so staying BY doesn't create more stars. With lower participation at the younger ages in BY vs SY, BY creates slightly fewer stars in theory. Having BY and SY coexist in peace and harmony is probably a pipe dream but again in theory would create more stars.

I agree except for the last part , both cutoffs co-existing may in theory increase participation but waters down the overall talent pool and weakens the development especially for what could be very elite level players.

[Anonymous]

https://norcalpremier.com/competition/pdp/resource/program-overview/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://norcalpremier.com/competition/pdp/resource/program-overview/

What is this supposed to show?

[Anonymous]

Previously we received a formal communication from our ECNL club that the cut off date would be July Aug 31 and that will get implemented in 2026-2027.

Since the new announcement by the US Soccer changed the cut off date to July 31 - there's zero formal communication. Is this because ECNL wasn't the one announcing it and still waiting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Previously we received a formal communication from our ECNL club that the cut off date would be July Aug 31 and that will get implemented in 2026-2027.

Since the new announcement by the US Soccer changed the cut off date to July 31 - there's zero formal communication. Is this because ECNL wasn't the one announcing it and still waiting?

It will be 8-1/7-31 starting 26/27.
Maybe transition players this year at a limited amount? 2-4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://norcalpremier.com/competition/pdp/resource/program-overview/

What is this supposed to show?

Its a strong indication of where things are headed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://norcalpremier.com/competition/pdp/resource/program-overview/

What is this supposed to show?

Its a strong indication of where things are headed.

Ummm...

1. ODP is US Club only (think ECNL and USYS clubs)
2. Not sure about Norcal but in other places the have 2 groupings per year/grade. The say this is to address RAE. But, it doubles the amount of money ODP makes.

No idea what this is trying to show reguarding BY/SY.

Leagues like GA and ECNL have their own talent id processes. Which have taken over whatever ODP was providing.