ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think there are such things as "GA" or "ECNL" tournaments outside of their league events. Just tournaments run by clubs that bring in both GA and ECNL teams.

Clubs run local tournaments and because of this will choose either BY or SY cutoffs if both are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else see the head of USYS just posted about meeting with the head of US Lacrosse.

Does this mean GY is on the horizon?

Trish the Commish told me that USYS was speaking to US Lacrosse because USYS was planning to switch to SY+30.

Trish doesn’t know nothing. They just wait for ECNL to decide on everything then copy it. Once ECNL posts their plan GA will follow.

Anything*

ECNL’s plan is 8/1 - 7/31 because it is US Club Soccer’s plan. GA will likely follow the SY model, but will have more flexibility than ECNL because GA is its own governing body.

How would this work if GA has more flexibility on the roster than ECNL in terms of competing at the tournament if they don't have same cut off date?

Technically GA could stay BY and play in US Club tournaments. They'd just be giving up 5 months to ECNL teams.

I dont know if this would be a good or bad thing for GA teams because they'd attract 1/1 born ECNL snd GA players. Also once you get into olders when youte born doesnt matter as much.

GA tournaments would need to play by SY rules if they want ECNL clubs to participate.

Actually I take that back. GA tournaments would not need to play by SY rules. They could stay BY however ECNL clubs would essentially have to play up to participate.

GA would recruit 1/1-8-1 players from ECNL
ECNzl would recruit 8/1-1/1 players from GA

The point of a tournament is to make money. You want as many teams as you can fit. You would have SY tournaments to accommodate the most amount of teams of all skill levels.

I agree with you but if theres a large enough base of attendees of either BY or SY grouped clubs they would be forced to choose one or the other.

Either way, clubs not in the grouping the tournaments chooses to use could still participate but they'd need to play against teams that are roughly 6 months older.

Which the more I think about might not be that bad of a thing. Say a team dominates its grouping. They would have teams to play against that are only 6 months (not 1 year) older to play against.

[Anonymous]

Teams play up all the time even now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Teams play up all the time even now.

Yes but if there was BY and SY grouped tournaments there would only be a 6 month difference in age between the teams. As opposed to a 1 year difference.

If a tournament really wanted to attract both BY and SY league attendance they'd switch the grouping each year.

This is very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams play up all the time even now.

Yes but if there was BY and SY grouped tournaments there would only be a 6 month difference in age between the teams. As opposed to a 1 year difference.

If a tournament really wanted to attract both BY and SY league attendance they'd switch the grouping each year.

This is very interesting.

It’s not interesting at all. Different age cutoffs would be utter chaos for tournament and interleague play, not to mention the clubs themselves, which is why everything will go to August 1st, despite the BY wish casters trying to scrape up doubt and loose reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams play up all the time even now.

Yes but if there was BY and SY grouped tournaments there would only be a 6 month difference in age between the teams. As opposed to a 1 year difference.

If a tournament really wanted to attract both BY and SY league attendance they'd switch the grouping each year.

This is very interesting.

It’s not interesting at all. Different age cutoffs would be utter chaos for tournament and interleague play, not to mention the clubs themselves, which is why everything will go to August 1st, despite the BY wish casters trying to scrape up doubt and loose reasoning.

As of right now...
- US Club affiliated clubs will go SY
- MLS Next, GA, and DPL have not stated if they'll stay BY or not.

Having two separate groupings of players is a very likely outcome.

[Anonymous]

Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

It's likely because they haven't said anything about SY.

It would be unlikely if they said they plan to switch to SY.

I realize DCUM people have already decided what all the leagues will do. But this is just opinion for the ones that haven't made a statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

How would having 2 groupings make it more difficult to identify talent at ulittle ages. If anything there would be double the number of players identified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

How would having 2 groupings make it more difficult to identify talent at ulittle ages. If anything there would be double the number of players identified.

No club is going to take the time or put resources into keeping two different registrations, MLSN may stay BY but they will be recruiting from SY system, can you tell me how that smooths things out for talent identification?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

How would having 2 groupings make it more difficult to identify talent at ulittle ages. If anything there would be double the number of players identified.

No club is going to take the time or put resources into keeping two different registrations, MLSN may stay BY but they will be recruiting from SY system, can you tell me how that smooths things out for talent identification?

It all depends on if the BY/SY arms race works its way down into the youngers. And even then clubs can put together BY teams in a SY league. So it all comes down to pipeline and recruiting.

[Anonymous]

I have no inside sources, BUT I do know people who went to GA nationals and they say the talk there was GA will go to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

How would having 2 groupings make it more difficult to identify talent at ulittle ages. If anything there would be double the number of players identified.

No club is going to take the time or put resources into keeping two different registrations, MLSN may stay BY but they will be recruiting from SY system, can you tell me how that smooths things out for talent identification?

It all depends on if the BY/SY arms race works its way down into the youngers. And even then clubs can put together BY teams in a SY league. So it all comes down to pipeline and recruiting.

You are unbelievably clueless, or trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it likely? What logical justification would MLSN and GA have that outweighs the risks of isolating themselves from the pipeline and other elite leagues.

They want to make it harder to identify talent at the ulittle ages?

How would having 2 groupings make it more difficult to identify talent at ulittle ages. If anything there would be double the number of players identified.

No club is going to take the time or put resources into keeping two different registrations, MLSN may stay BY but they will be recruiting from SY system, can you tell me how that smooths things out for talent identification?

It all depends on if the BY/SY arms race works its way down into the youngers. And even then clubs can put together BY teams in a SY league. So it all comes down to pipeline and recruiting.

You are unbelievably clueless, or trolling.

And you are working double time to affirm the opinions going on in your head.