ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t we all just wait for the soccer overlords to decide the fate of the world?

I don't care if things change or if they don't change. My kid is a trapped player that starts and will be successful either way.

It is annoying though that the ECNL crowd isn't being honest about BY vs SY. They're also making up rumors to try and support a change that would benifit Aug-Dec birthday players. Which I assume their kid is or they would be commenting here to vigorously.

[Anonymous]

What is old is new again...apologies for the length of this ahead of time. I promise I will eventually make a point, ha! I think I have a unique perspective on this having played/lived through it in the 90's when it went from BY to SY (Aug-July cutoff). I want to say it was my 7th or 8th grade year (I do not remember exactly and yes I know I am old). I have an August birthday and was one of the youngest in my grade. That sucked athletically but I would not change it if I could. I can understand why parents with summer kid birthdays are tempted to hold kids back. I do not judge either way.

I was an average player on a mid table D1 team with average physical ability that started and saw plenty of minutes. Once the change to SY was enforced the club decided it would not play players "up" (we were told that anyway but that might have been only for kids not in high school). I was forced to play "down" despite being the only kid on the team in an older grade level. I was "reverse trapped" and NOT happy for being what I felt was demoted. The club disruption lasted exactly one tryout season then it was business as usual. It was not a big deal at all and wont be again if they change it after the initial band-aid rip.

After the change to SY RAE was now a benefit to me zero question. Goal contributions were dramatically better but I was not a better player being able to get away with mistakes due to physical maturity. Entering my junior year of high school the club decided to play me "up" being the only junior on the team I was on so I could do the college showcases ect...with the older team. I went back to an average at best player that still saw good minutes despite being the youngest on the field but I was fine with that knowing it was better competition. I was a VERY small percentage of kids impacted this way. I can say that my senior year was a joke unfortunately. The kids with offers (Notre Dame/Clemson/SMU) and the ones that knew they were not going anywhere drastically reduced their commitment level. I can see where some trapped players may get screwed in the current system their junior year playing with seniors.

I now have a son that is a trapped 2010 ECNL player who starts on a mid table team. I do NOT want the change to happen selfishly for I strongly believe the older the kids he gets to play with/against, the better he will be long term. Those with BY Q1 or Q2 birthdays should want change to happen so their kids get to compete against older kids. It will make them better. Struggle makes better players when RAE evens out. What I know is that if they do change it, it is about ALL kids which is why it should happen despite my preference for it to stay the same having played three ways (BY, SY, and up a year). My preference for it to stay the same is just me being selfish for what I believe to be best for my kid. That he gets to play with the oldest kids possible for as long as possible. I know this is not about my kid. BY screws Q1 kids long term as well for they never (in most cases) get to play with/against older kids regularly and will be judged against them come scouting/recruiting time. What I want or we want is irrelevant so I understand why change should happen. It needs to change for the Q1 player and the trapped player for different reasons.

Kids/parents entering "the system" after a change will never know any different. RAE will just shift. Having trapped players, Q1 BY players not able to play against older kids the majority are judged against, AND RAE does not make sense when two of the three can be eliminated. It never made sense to change it back to BY from SY in 2018 (or whenever that was).

With the addition of MLS since my playing days, if I had a magic wand, I would keep MLS BY and have the other leagues go SY. This would give kids/parents more choices to the path that best fits them and a national team pool easier to identify. That should raise the number of all kids committed to the sport longer which is great for everyone...

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think should happen is leagues like GA, ECNL, whatever should be BY.

But events like showcases which shouldn't count against or for a teams record should be SY.

If you do this everyone is happy.

If kids play along a couple different cutoffs within their club, here's my suggestion...

ECNL, GA, and maybe even MLSNext play league, tournaments, and showcases according to SY. They form secondary "international" teams on two year boundaries for the year. So, e.g., maybe this next year there is a "2008/2009 International Team" inside the top clubs. That team plays any international friendlies/tournaments the club wants, and participates in a once-a-year "International Showcase." The top, top kids get international experience and exposure, national team scouts go to this showcase, and the whole rest of the system doesn't get dragged into the mess of being misaligned with domestic school cutoffs.

I suggest GA, ECNL, etc keep everything BY.

But, US Soccer creates a new league called NWSL Next grouped exactly like MLS Next also grouped by BY.

Any league that targets college recruiting should do SY.

Any local league that targets young players should do SY.

MLS can do BY if it competes against the Academy team.

College teams need players as much as youth players need college teams to play on.

BY doesn't matter. Colleges that need players will sort through what's available to find the best options.

Think about it. College coaches can find foreign players from different countries. But they can't identify a trapped player from an American youth club?

Switching to SY won't change anything. You're just altered the players that won the birthday lottery. Instead of trying to change the rules to give your Aug to Dec birthday kid a potential advantage. Just spend more time training in the park or investing in strength training.

Let’s say no one played college, no recruiting. It still makes more sense to let kids be grouped with their same grade? It makes sense to get rid of anytime in the system where kids teams get split up for one group to play high school and one group to figure something out.

Even if it’s slightly more convenient SY makes sense to everyone but parents with kids Jan to July. Which is fine. I get it.

If this is what you want tell ECNL to allow 4-5 trapped players to play down. It solves your issue allowing all the players in the same grade to play on the same team.

However I know the secret about why you don't want above. If implemented it would make it difficult for ECNL teams to participate in BY tournaments. Their teams would get destroyed by BY teams because they wouldn't be able to play all the trapped players down.

And MLS Next can't play the biobanders, whatever.

The holy grail is increasing youth soccer participation. Going to school year addresses this.

How does staying at calendar year help soccer participation in any way in the long run?

Look how quickly you glossed over the solution ECNL can take to address the issue that you feel is such a problem. (Trapped Players)

Again, ECNL can allow 4-5 trapped players to play down and everything works.

Why are you ignoring this?

USSF has 3 pages on their fees in their policies doc. To keep the cash flowing up from parents, they need kids to play. So how does maintaining calendar year help increase youth soccer participation in the long run?

ECNL and MLS Next have been add teams and lower ages to keep the dollars rolling in but this has its limits of course.

I wish there was an ignore button for your posts.

You just want something to occur a certain way and belligerently keep posting the same things.

I've shown you how ECNL leadership can get what they want while staying withing the BY structure. Take the hint.

This isn't just about ECNL. Switching back to school year would be a hail Mary to try to save youth soccer. How does birth year help youth soccer?

Save youth soccer from what?

From NCAA barely maintaining control of their system and college changing to more of a professional model that pays the players?

USSF finances not looking great since switch to calendar year, of course COVID a factor also, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135591991. Regardless of the reasons, not looking good.

The number of births has been going down for 10+ years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

BY isn't the reason there's less players.

So how does staying at calendar year help youth soccer participation? If it doesn't, it isn't sacred.

Neither BY or SY will equate to more players when there's less kids available to play because of a declining birthrate.

I realize that you're trying to somehow link BY with less players and SY with potentially more. Reality is neither do anything.

On the end of the ECNL podcast from 2 weeks, it was talked about how switching to academic year from calendar year is the most important thing needed to help youth soccer participation. So how does staying with calendar year help youth soccer participation?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think should happen is leagues like GA, ECNL, whatever should be BY.

But events like showcases which shouldn't count against or for a teams record should be SY.

If you do this everyone is happy.

If kids play along a couple different cutoffs within their club, here's my suggestion...

ECNL, GA, and maybe even MLSNext play league, tournaments, and showcases according to SY. They form secondary "international" teams on two year boundaries for the year. So, e.g., maybe this next year there is a "2008/2009 International Team" inside the top clubs. That team plays any international friendlies/tournaments the club wants, and participates in a once-a-year "International Showcase." The top, top kids get international experience and exposure, national team scouts go to this showcase, and the whole rest of the system doesn't get dragged into the mess of being misaligned with domestic school cutoffs.

I suggest GA, ECNL, etc keep everything BY.

But, US Soccer creates a new league called NWSL Next grouped exactly like MLS Next also grouped by BY.

Any league that targets college recruiting should do SY.

Any local league that targets young players should do SY.

MLS can do BY if it competes against the Academy team.

College teams need players as much as youth players need college teams to play on.

BY doesn't matter. Colleges that need players will sort through what's available to find the best options.

Think about it. College coaches can find foreign players from different countries. But they can't identify a trapped player from an American youth club?

Switching to SY won't change anything. You're just altered the players that won the birthday lottery. Instead of trying to change the rules to give your Aug to Dec birthday kid a potential advantage. Just spend more time training in the park or investing in strength training.

Let’s say no one played college, no recruiting. It still makes more sense to let kids be grouped with their same grade? It makes sense to get rid of anytime in the system where kids teams get split up for one group to play high school and one group to figure something out.

Even if it’s slightly more convenient SY makes sense to everyone but parents with kids Jan to July. Which is fine. I get it.

If this is what you want tell ECNL to allow 4-5 trapped players to play down. It solves your issue allowing all the players in the same grade to play on the same team.

However I know the secret about why you don't want above. If implemented it would make it difficult for ECNL teams to participate in BY tournaments. Their teams would get destroyed by BY teams because they wouldn't be able to play all the trapped players down.

And MLS Next can't play the biobanders, whatever.

The holy grail is increasing youth soccer participation. Going to school year addresses this.

How does staying at calendar year help soccer participation in any way in the long run?

Look how quickly you glossed over the solution ECNL can take to address the issue that you feel is such a problem. (Trapped Players)

Again, ECNL can allow 4-5 trapped players to play down and everything works.

Why are you ignoring this?

USSF has 3 pages on their fees in their policies doc. To keep the cash flowing up from parents, they need kids to play. So how does maintaining calendar year help increase youth soccer participation in the long run?

ECNL and MLS Next have been add teams and lower ages to keep the dollars rolling in but this has its limits of course.

I wish there was an ignore button for your posts.

You just want something to occur a certain way and belligerently keep posting the same things.

I've shown you how ECNL leadership can get what they want while staying withing the BY structure. Take the hint.

This isn't just about ECNL. Switching back to school year would be a hail Mary to try to save youth soccer. How does birth year help youth soccer?

Save youth soccer from what?

From NCAA barely maintaining control of their system and college changing to more of a professional model that pays the players?

USSF finances not looking great since switch to calendar year, of course COVID a factor also, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135591991. Regardless of the reasons, not looking good.

The number of births has been going down for 10+ years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

BY isn't the reason there's less players.

So how does staying at calendar year help youth soccer participation? If it doesn't, it isn't sacred.

Neither BY or SY will equate to more players when there's less kids available to play because of a declining birthrate.

I realize that you're trying to somehow link BY with less players and SY with potentially more. Reality is neither do anything.

On the end of the ECNL podcast from 2 weeks, it was talked about how switching to academic year from calendar year is the most important thing needed to help youth soccer participation. So how does staying with calendar year help youth soccer participation?

Many people believe that BY led to lower participation rates. Some believe it makes no difference. No one seems to believe BY led to higher participation rates. If you had to gamble on BY/SY from a participation standpoint, it's a free roll to go with SY.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think should happen is leagues like GA, ECNL, whatever should be BY.

But events like showcases which shouldn't count against or for a teams record should be SY.

If you do this everyone is happy.

If kids play along a couple different cutoffs within their club, here's my suggestion...

ECNL, GA, and maybe even MLSNext play league, tournaments, and showcases according to SY. They form secondary "international" teams on two year boundaries for the year. So, e.g., maybe this next year there is a "2008/2009 International Team" inside the top clubs. That team plays any international friendlies/tournaments the club wants, and participates in a once-a-year "International Showcase." The top, top kids get international experience and exposure, national team scouts go to this showcase, and the whole rest of the system doesn't get dragged into the mess of being misaligned with domestic school cutoffs.

I suggest GA, ECNL, etc keep everything BY.

But, US Soccer creates a new league called NWSL Next grouped exactly like MLS Next also grouped by BY.

Any league that targets college recruiting should do SY.

Any local league that targets young players should do SY.

MLS can do BY if it competes against the Academy team.

College teams need players as much as youth players need college teams to play on.

BY doesn't matter. Colleges that need players will sort through what's available to find the best options.

Think about it. College coaches can find foreign players from different countries. But they can't identify a trapped player from an American youth club?

Switching to SY won't change anything. You're just altered the players that won the birthday lottery. Instead of trying to change the rules to give your Aug to Dec birthday kid a potential advantage. Just spend more time training in the park or investing in strength training.

Let’s say no one played college, no recruiting. It still makes more sense to let kids be grouped with their same grade? It makes sense to get rid of anytime in the system where kids teams get split up for one group to play high school and one group to figure something out.

Even if it’s slightly more convenient SY makes sense to everyone but parents with kids Jan to July. Which is fine. I get it.

If this is what you want tell ECNL to allow 4-5 trapped players to play down. It solves your issue allowing all the players in the same grade to play on the same team.

However I know the secret about why you don't want above. If implemented it would make it difficult for ECNL teams to participate in BY tournaments. Their teams would get destroyed by BY teams because they wouldn't be able to play all the trapped players down.

And MLS Next can't play the biobanders, whatever.

The holy grail is increasing youth soccer participation. Going to school year addresses this.

How does staying at calendar year help soccer participation in any way in the long run?

Look how quickly you glossed over the solution ECNL can take to address the issue that you feel is such a problem. (Trapped Players)

Again, ECNL can allow 4-5 trapped players to play down and everything works.

Why are you ignoring this?

USSF has 3 pages on their fees in their policies doc. To keep the cash flowing up from parents, they need kids to play. So how does maintaining calendar year help increase youth soccer participation in the long run?

ECNL and MLS Next have been add teams and lower ages to keep the dollars rolling in but this has its limits of course.

I wish there was an ignore button for your posts.

You just want something to occur a certain way and belligerently keep posting the same things.

I've shown you how ECNL leadership can get what they want while staying withing the BY structure. Take the hint.

This isn't just about ECNL. Switching back to school year would be a hail Mary to try to save youth soccer. How does birth year help youth soccer?

Save youth soccer from what?

From NCAA barely maintaining control of their system and college changing to more of a professional model that pays the players?

USSF finances not looking great since switch to calendar year, of course COVID a factor also, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135591991. Regardless of the reasons, not looking good.

The number of births has been going down for 10+ years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

BY isn't the reason there's less players.

So how does staying at calendar year help youth soccer participation? If it doesn't, it isn't sacred.

Neither BY or SY will equate to more players when there's less kids available to play because of a declining birthrate.

I realize that you're trying to somehow link BY with less players and SY with potentially more. Reality is neither do anything.

On the end of the ECNL podcast from 2 weeks, it was talked about how switching to academic year from calendar year is the most important thing needed to help youth soccer participation. So how does staying with calendar year help youth soccer participation?

You can't get blood from a stone.

If the birthrate is declining this means there's less potential players.

Unless ECNL figures out a way to start giving birth to more kids you're going to see less players no matter what.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think should happen is leagues like GA, ECNL, whatever should be BY.

But events like showcases which shouldn't count against or for a teams record should be SY.

If you do this everyone is happy.

If kids play along a couple different cutoffs within their club, here's my suggestion...

ECNL, GA, and maybe even MLSNext play league, tournaments, and showcases according to SY. They form secondary "international" teams on two year boundaries for the year. So, e.g., maybe this next year there is a "2008/2009 International Team" inside the top clubs. That team plays any international friendlies/tournaments the club wants, and participates in a once-a-year "International Showcase." The top, top kids get international experience and exposure, national team scouts go to this showcase, and the whole rest of the system doesn't get dragged into the mess of being misaligned with domestic school cutoffs.

I suggest GA, ECNL, etc keep everything BY.

But, US Soccer creates a new league called NWSL Next grouped exactly like MLS Next also grouped by BY.

Any league that targets college recruiting should do SY.

Any local league that targets young players should do SY.

MLS can do BY if it competes against the Academy team.

College teams need players as much as youth players need college teams to play on.

BY doesn't matter. Colleges that need players will sort through what's available to find the best options.

Think about it. College coaches can find foreign players from different countries. But they can't identify a trapped player from an American youth club?

Switching to SY won't change anything. You're just altered the players that won the birthday lottery. Instead of trying to change the rules to give your Aug to Dec birthday kid a potential advantage. Just spend more time training in the park or investing in strength training.

Let’s say no one played college, no recruiting. It still makes more sense to let kids be grouped with their same grade? It makes sense to get rid of anytime in the system where kids teams get split up for one group to play high school and one group to figure something out.

Even if it’s slightly more convenient SY makes sense to everyone but parents with kids Jan to July. Which is fine. I get it.

If this is what you want tell ECNL to allow 4-5 trapped players to play down. It solves your issue allowing all the players in the same grade to play on the same team.

However I know the secret about why you don't want above. If implemented it would make it difficult for ECNL teams to participate in BY tournaments. Their teams would get destroyed by BY teams because they wouldn't be able to play all the trapped players down.

And MLS Next can't play the biobanders, whatever.

The holy grail is increasing youth soccer participation. Going to school year addresses this.

How does staying at calendar year help soccer participation in any way in the long run?

Look how quickly you glossed over the solution ECNL can take to address the issue that you feel is such a problem. (Trapped Players)

Again, ECNL can allow 4-5 trapped players to play down and everything works.

Why are you ignoring this?

USSF has 3 pages on their fees in their policies doc. To keep the cash flowing up from parents, they need kids to play. So how does maintaining calendar year help increase youth soccer participation in the long run?

ECNL and MLS Next have been add teams and lower ages to keep the dollars rolling in but this has its limits of course.

I wish there was an ignore button for your posts.

You just want something to occur a certain way and belligerently keep posting the same things.

I've shown you how ECNL leadership can get what they want while staying withing the BY structure. Take the hint.

This isn't just about ECNL. Switching back to school year would be a hail Mary to try to save youth soccer. How does birth year help youth soccer?

Save youth soccer from what?

From NCAA barely maintaining control of their system and college changing to more of a professional model that pays the players?

USSF finances not looking great since switch to calendar year, of course COVID a factor also, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135591991. Regardless of the reasons, not looking good.

The number of births has been going down for 10+ years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

BY isn't the reason there's less players.

So how does staying at calendar year help youth soccer participation? If it doesn't, it isn't sacred.

Neither BY or SY will equate to more players when there's less kids available to play because of a declining birthrate.

I realize that you're trying to somehow link BY with less players and SY with potentially more. Reality is neither do anything.

On the end of the ECNL podcast from 2 weeks, it was talked about how switching to academic year from calendar year is the most important thing needed to help youth soccer participation. So how does staying with calendar year help youth soccer participation?

Many people believe that BY led to lower participation rates. Some believe it makes no difference. No one seems to believe BY led to higher participation rates. If you had to gamble on BY/SY from a participation standpoint, it's a free roll to go with SY.

That's stupid logic.

[Anonymous]

For a team of 18, I think about 7 or 8 Q3/Q4 players will join from older NL, RL, and outside and take 5 to 6 starter positions. This will be a massive blow to the Q1/Q2 parents.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I think should happen is leagues like GA, ECNL, whatever should be BY.

But events like showcases which shouldn't count against or for a teams record should be SY.

If you do this everyone is happy.

If kids play along a couple different cutoffs within their club, here's my suggestion...

ECNL, GA, and maybe even MLSNext play league, tournaments, and showcases according to SY. They form secondary "international" teams on two year boundaries for the year. So, e.g., maybe this next year there is a "2008/2009 International Team" inside the top clubs. That team plays any international friendlies/tournaments the club wants, and participates in a once-a-year "International Showcase." The top, top kids get international experience and exposure, national team scouts go to this showcase, and the whole rest of the system doesn't get dragged into the mess of being misaligned with domestic school cutoffs.

I suggest GA, ECNL, etc keep everything BY.

But, US Soccer creates a new league called NWSL Next grouped exactly like MLS Next also grouped by BY.

Any league that targets college recruiting should do SY.

Any local league that targets young players should do SY.

MLS can do BY if it competes against the Academy team.

College teams need players as much as youth players need college teams to play on.

BY doesn't matter. Colleges that need players will sort through what's available to find the best options.

Think about it. College coaches can find foreign players from different countries. But they can't identify a trapped player from an American youth club?

Switching to SY won't change anything. You're just altered the players that won the birthday lottery. Instead of trying to change the rules to give your Aug to Dec birthday kid a potential advantage. Just spend more time training in the park or investing in strength training.

Let’s say no one played college, no recruiting. It still makes more sense to let kids be grouped with their same grade? It makes sense to get rid of anytime in the system where kids teams get split up for one group to play high school and one group to figure something out.

Even if it’s slightly more convenient SY makes sense to everyone but parents with kids Jan to July. Which is fine. I get it.

If this is what you want tell ECNL to allow 4-5 trapped players to play down. It solves your issue allowing all the players in the same grade to play on the same team.

However I know the secret about why you don't want above. If implemented it would make it difficult for ECNL teams to participate in BY tournaments. Their teams would get destroyed by BY teams because they wouldn't be able to play all the trapped players down.

And MLS Next can't play the biobanders, whatever.

The holy grail is increasing youth soccer participation. Going to school year addresses this.

How does staying at calendar year help soccer participation in any way in the long run?

Look how quickly you glossed over the solution ECNL can take to address the issue that you feel is such a problem. (Trapped Players)

Again, ECNL can allow 4-5 trapped players to play down and everything works.

Why are you ignoring this?

USSF has 3 pages on their fees in their policies doc. To keep the cash flowing up from parents, they need kids to play. So how does maintaining calendar year help increase youth soccer participation in the long run?

ECNL and MLS Next have been add teams and lower ages to keep the dollars rolling in but this has its limits of course.

I wish there was an ignore button for your posts.

You just want something to occur a certain way and belligerently keep posting the same things.

I've shown you how ECNL leadership can get what they want while staying withing the BY structure. Take the hint.

This isn't just about ECNL. Switching back to school year would be a hail Mary to try to save youth soccer. How does birth year help youth soccer?

Save youth soccer from what?

From NCAA barely maintaining control of their system and college changing to more of a professional model that pays the players?

USSF finances not looking great since switch to calendar year, of course COVID a factor also, https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/135591991. Regardless of the reasons, not looking good.

The number of births has been going down for 10+ years.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2024/20240525.htm

BY isn't the reason there's less players.

So how does staying at calendar year help youth soccer participation? If it doesn't, it isn't sacred.

Neither BY or SY will equate to more players when there's less kids available to play because of a declining birthrate.

I realize that you're trying to somehow link BY with less players and SY with potentially more. Reality is neither do anything.

On the end of the ECNL podcast from 2 weeks, it was talked about how switching to academic year from calendar year is the most important thing needed to help youth soccer participation. So how does staying with calendar year help youth soccer participation?

Many people believe that BY led to lower participation rates. Some believe it makes no difference. No one seems to believe BY led to higher participation rates. If you had to gamble on BY/SY from a participation standpoint, it's a free roll to go with SY.

That's stupid logic.

You should be more specific on the perceived logic flaw. And you forgot to say their kid stinks at soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t we all just wait for the soccer overlords to decide the fate of the world?

I don't care if things change or if they don't change. My kid is a trapped player that starts and will be successful either way.

It is annoying though that the ECNL crowd isn't being honest about BY vs SY. They're also making up rumors to try and support a change that would benifit Aug-Dec birthday players. Which I assume their kid is or they would be commenting here to vigorously.

Why would you listen and take anyone at face value on a public anonymous forum? Who’s to say who’s being honest or not? Or who’s making up rumors? Some rumors are true some are false.

The only person you you should “believe” is what the ECNL president is saying publicly any outside noice is all hearsay and truthful or not it is unreliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t we all just wait for the soccer overlords to decide the fate of the world?

I don't care if things change or if they don't change. My kid is a trapped player that starts and will be successful either way.

It is annoying though that the ECNL crowd isn't being honest about BY vs SY. They're also making up rumors to try and support a change that would benifit Aug-Dec birthday players. Which I assume their kid is or they would be commenting here to vigorously.

Why would you listen and take anyone at face value on a public anonymous forum? Who’s to say who’s being honest or not? Or who’s making up rumors? Some rumors are true some are false.

The only person you you should “believe” is what the ECNL president is saying publicly any outside noice is all hearsay and truthful or not it is unreliable.

I agree with you reguaring only listening to what the ECNL president says. That's all that matters reguarding ECNL and BY/SY.

The rumor people just get annoying when they try to twist often made up detail into reality if it fits their agenda.

I see through the nonsense but not everyone else does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is old is new again...apologies for the length of this ahead of time. I promise I will eventually make a point, ha! I think I have a unique perspective on this having played/lived through it in the 90's when it went from BY to SY (Aug-July cutoff). I want to say it was my 7th or 8th grade year (I do not remember exactly and yes I know I am old). I have an August birthday and was one of the youngest in my grade. That sucked athletically but I would not change it if I could. I can understand why parents with summer kid birthdays are tempted to hold kids back. I do not judge either way.

I was an average player on a mid table D1 team with average physical ability that started and saw plenty of minutes. Once the change to SY was enforced the club decided it would not play players "up" (we were told that anyway but that might have been only for kids not in high school). I was forced to play "down" despite being the only kid on the team in an older grade level. I was "reverse trapped" and NOT happy for being what I felt was demoted. The club disruption lasted exactly one tryout season then it was business as usual. It was not a big deal at all and wont be again if they change it after the initial band-aid rip.

After the change to SY RAE was now a benefit to me zero question. Goal contributions were dramatically better but I was not a better player being able to get away with mistakes due to physical maturity. Entering my junior year of high school the club decided to play me "up" being the only junior on the team I was on so I could do the college showcases ect...with the older team. I went back to an average at best player that still saw good minutes despite being the youngest on the field but I was fine with that knowing it was better competition. I was a VERY small percentage of kids impacted this way. I can say that my senior year was a joke unfortunately. The kids with offers (Notre Dame/Clemson/SMU) and the ones that knew they were not going anywhere drastically reduced their commitment level. I can see where some trapped players may get screwed in the current system their junior year playing with seniors.

I now have a son that is a trapped 2010 ECNL player who starts on a mid table team. I do NOT want the change to happen selfishly for I strongly believe the older the kids he gets to play with/against, the better he will be long term. Those with BY Q1 or Q2 birthdays should want change to happen so their kids get to compete against older kids. It will make them better. Struggle makes better players when RAE evens out. What I know is that if they do change it, it is about ALL kids which is why it should happen despite my preference for it to stay the same having played three ways (BY, SY, and up a year). My preference for it to stay the same is just me being selfish for what I believe to be best for my kid. That he gets to play with the oldest kids possible for as long as possible. I know this is not about my kid. BY screws Q1 kids long term as well for they never (in most cases) get to play with/against older kids regularly and will be judged against them come scouting/recruiting time. What I want or we want is irrelevant so I understand why change should happen. It needs to change for the Q1 player and the trapped player for different reasons.

Kids/parents entering "the system" after a change will never know any different. RAE will just shift. Having trapped players, Q1 BY players not able to play against older kids the majority are judged against, AND RAE does not make sense when two of the three can be eliminated. It never made sense to change it back to BY from SY in 2018 (or whenever that was).

With the addition of MLS since my playing days, if I had a magic wand, I would keep MLS BY and have the other leagues go SY. This would give kids/parents more choices to the path that best fits them and a national team pool easier to identify. That should raise the number of all kids committed to the sport longer which is great for everyone...

Any good trapped player can still play up if they switch to SY unless the individual club outlaws it for some reason. So you can have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why the switch would be any more of a hassle than the movement of players that happens every year at tryouts. Strong players play up a year now…I am sure clubs will allow strong trapped players to continue playing with BY if they want to and those players on the bench on any team (and their parents, who are clearly loud on here) are just nervous that the kids coming in will be from an older age group not a team in their age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the switch would be any more of a hassle than the movement of players that happens every year at tryouts. Strong players play up a year now…I am sure clubs will allow strong trapped players to continue playing with BY if they want to and those players on the bench on any team (and their parents, who are clearly loud on here) are just nervous that the kids coming in will be from an older age group not a team in their age group.

The difference would be you usually are trading 1-3 Q1 kids for other Q1 kids but now you will have every Aug to Dec kid going to various tryouts for a bunch of teams on top of the usual amount of kids who switch.

[Anonymous]

And spaces opening up on each team as Aug to Dec kids try out for SY. We are talking 2-3 kids on ecnl teams at most. Most teams see that many or more displaced even without this change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And spaces opening up on each team as Aug to Dec kids try out for SY. We are talking 2-3 kids on ecnl teams at most. Most teams see that many or more displaced even without this change

7 to 8 Q3/Q4 players will take the 18 players roster and 5 starter positions

Q1/Q2 parents will go crazy when that happens.