ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re probably right.

[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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

[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.

There are many many many ECNL clubs that do not allow kids to play up (with the obvious exceptions; coaches kids and kids from other areas that move to the club and their parents use their one shot of leverage)

[Anonymous]

The obvious exceptions are all we are talking about when it comes to playing up and in this area there isn't a club I know of that doesn't allow it for one or two per age group. The angst we are hearing here is because most trapped ECNL players will likely choose to play with their graduating year if given the choice.

[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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

It was an expert opinion from someone who studies the data, conducts research, and is in the game (https://www.soccertoday.com/drew-watson-becomes-ecnls-first-chief-medical-advisor/?cn-reloaded=1) in response to a question.

[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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

It was an expert opinion from someone who studies the data, conducts research, and is in the game (https://www.soccertoday.com/drew-watson-becomes-ecnls-first-chief-medical-advisor/?cn-reloaded=1) in response to a question.

The link you provided describes someone ECNL brought on primarily to assist with return to play initiatives after covid. They are a medical doctor and soccer coach. Other than knowing the game and being a doctor this person's views on BY vs SY are opinion like yours or mine.

Stop reaching with the mental gymnastics. It hurts your SY agenda more than it helps when people think you're obviously trying to manipulate others with very weak "evidence ".

[Anonymous]

I have an idea.

ECNL should just let 18 players born after Aug 1st play down an age group. This is just a rule change which ECNL owns from a league perspective and doesn't need approval from US Soccer to implement. What would happen is ECNL would still officially be BY like everyone else. But, the teams would all be 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:

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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

I'm not interested in triggering this debate for the 10th time in this thread, but the short answer is that there are some datasets showing drops in participation rates coincidental with the change to BY, and not having fully rebounded. There are also datasets showing missing Q4 kids particularly from different levels of club soccer since the change to BY. Coaches and parents have supported this theory with reported anecdotes of kids quitting for this reason, particularly at younger ages.

This has led to a widely held belief that BY is worse for youth soccer participation overall. But others claim that these drops are all attributable to other factors and shouldn't be deemed to have been caused by switching to BY.

Again, there's no point in rehashing that debate here, as it's been beaten like a dead horse. But suffice to say that some people disagree with the conclusion that BY is causing lower participation rates.

[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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

I'm not interested in triggering this debate for the 10th time in this thread, but the short answer is that there are some datasets showing drops in participation rates coincidental with the change to BY, and not having fully rebounded. There are also datasets showing missing Q4 kids particularly from different levels of club soccer since the change to BY. Coaches and parents have supported this theory with reported anecdotes of kids quitting for this reason, particularly at younger ages.

This has led to a widely held belief that BY is worse for youth soccer participation overall. But others claim that these drops are all attributable to other factors and shouldn't be deemed to have been caused by switching to BY.

Again, there's no point in rehashing that debate here, as it's been beaten like a dead horse. But suffice to say that some people disagree with the conclusion that BY is causing lower participation rates.

There's also some massive benefits to ECNL if they switched to SY while everyone else stayed BY.

ECNLs players would all be 6 months older than their competition and BY clubs would no longer play SY clubs in tournaments. The net effect would be all high level cross league play would stop and tournaments held by youth clubs would no longer have top teams participate.

So there's that.

[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:

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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

It was an expert opinion from someone who studies the data, conducts research, and is in the game (https://www.soccertoday.com/drew-watson-becomes-ecnls-first-chief-medical-advisor/?cn-reloaded=1) in response to a question.

The link you provided describes someone ECNL brought on primarily to assist with return to play initiatives after covid. They are a medical doctor and soccer coach. Other than knowing the game and being a doctor this person's views on BY vs SY are opinion like yours or mine.

Stop reaching with the mental gymnastics. It hurts your SY agenda more than it helps when people think you're obviously trying to manipulate others with very weak "evidence ".

You might be overestimating your opinions, https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/study-released-on-consequences-of-no-sports_aid48367

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are many many many ECNL clubs that do not allow kids to play up (with the obvious exceptions; coaches kids and kids from other areas that move to the club and their parents use their one shot of leverage)

If the change happens, in large part justified by getting players to play with class, ECNL/USSF/USClub/USYS should make it very clear in guidelines/recommendations that whenever possible kids should be played up with their class. This should be especially pushed, or even required, by high school. Playing down in class, even if a player's true age group, should really be thought of as the equivalent of biobanding down temporarily for kids who can't yet make a club's A team with class.

[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:

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?

Not arguing for BY as an aid to soccer participation.

BUT, besides “it sounds good” how do they know SY is “the most important thing needed”?

It was an expert opinion from someone who studies the data, conducts research, and is in the game (https://www.soccertoday.com/drew-watson-becomes-ecnls-first-chief-medical-advisor/?cn-reloaded=1) in response to a question.

The link you provided describes someone ECNL brought on primarily to assist with return to play initiatives after covid. They are a medical doctor and soccer coach. Other than knowing the game and being a doctor this person's views on BY vs SY are opinion like yours or mine.

Stop reaching with the mental gymnastics. It hurts your SY agenda more than it helps when people think you're obviously trying to manipulate others with very weak "evidence ".

You might be overestimating your opinions, https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/study-released-on-consequences-of-no-sports_aid48367

Do you even read the links that you post.

The survey that your doctor coach implemented was used to write a study on the consequences of no sports for children. The study was comissioned by ECNL to encourage participation in sports after covid lockdowns.

This has nothing to do with BY or SY. It's simply encouraging kids to play sports by highlighting the benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an idea.

ECNL should just let 18 players born after Aug 1st play down an age group. This is just a rule change which ECNL owns from a league perspective and doesn't need approval from US Soccer to implement. What would happen is ECNL would still officially be BY like everyone else. But, the teams would all be SY.

If ECNL can address trapped players with a rule change why don't they just do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an idea.

ECNL should just let 18 players born after Aug 1st play down an age group. This is just a rule change which ECNL owns from a league perspective and doesn't need approval from US Soccer to implement. What would happen is ECNL would still officially be BY like everyone else. But, the teams would all be SY.

If ECNL can address trapped players with a rule change why don't they just do that?

Hubris, ego, ECNL wants to show the US Soccer that they're in control.

For those that don't know US Soccer when they were running DA forced ECNL to change from SY to BY in 2018.

This is why I'm not supporting a change to SY. This is just a pissing match between people that control youth soccer. No matter what solution is chosen someone is going to be unhappy. So to me it just makes sense to keep everything which is functional for everyone involved in place. Making the change is a waste of time and resources.