ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

GA should stay BY and ECNL should go to SY and let parents decide which platform works best for their specific situation. Choice model in its purest form.

[Anonymous]

https://www.tiktok.com/@jgrimleysoccer/video/6922188666207063301

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GA should stay BY and ECNL should go to SY and let parents decide which platform works best for their specific situation. Choice model in its purest form.

Yep. GA is aligned with US Soccer. They should stay BY.

ECNL is aligned with College/SY. That should be an option as well.

I personally know folks that play ECNL that are not in favor of this change. This are refusing to play down an age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GA should stay BY and ECNL should go to SY and let parents decide which platform works best for their specific situation. Choice model in its purest form.

Yep. GA is aligned with US Soccer. They should stay BY.

ECNL is aligned with College/SY. That should be an option as well.

I personally know folks that play ECNL that are not in favor of this change. This are refusing to play down an age group.

Yes, if you are actually a savvy parent and have a very good trapped player, you want to stay on your team and keep playing against older and bigger girls for development purposes. I think the fringe kids (average Q1/Q2 that get hurt by SY) (average Q3/Q4 that get hurt by BY) are always at risk. But even for the trapped very good players they will still have a slightly more challenging path in BY, they are just better equipped to deal with it because of their ability.

[Anonymous]

MLS Next seems to have a pretty good handle on how to do this stuff. Why cant USSF and NWSL or the new USL Super League get together and form real academies on the girls side? Seems like a no brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.tiktok.com/@jgrimleysoccer/video/6922188666207063301

I dont know who that person is but the comments section would seem to indicate not many people agree with her. And it appears to be a few years old as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.tiktok.com/@jgrimleysoccer/video/6922188666207063301

I dont know who that person is but the comments section would seem to indicate not many people agree with her. And it appears to be a few years old as well.

She's a college soccer player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep trying to figure out if this is somehow a way for ECNL to finish GA off for good. With several top GA clubs moving to ECNL this year, and rumors of 4-5 more next year, is this another moat to build around ECNL as the top league?

On the other hand this may be the reason why they want USSF to go along with it as, if they go it alone, there might be some defection to GA for Q1/Q2 born if ECNL goes SY and GA stays BY, which would be dumb for ECNL to do I would think.

Never going to happen, GA is here to stay.

ECNL had their chance to take over the youth soccer market when DA blew up and chose to not capitalize.

Wait until US Soccer implements NWSL Next via the top clubs in GA. ECNL parents minds will melt.

GA is literally already the minor leagues. Take a look at any credible rating and there might be one or two GA teams in any age group top 25. And VERY rarely any in the top 10. If they lose Top Hat, CUP, LFA it just waters it down even more. The current break down for something like college offers is 70% ECNL 20% GA and 10% all other. If GA loses 3-4 more top teams then those numbers keep going down. If you have a choice, not sure why you would stay at a GA program if there is an ECNL available unless you are in one of those very select few markets that has a super strong GA club, like Atlanta or Cincinnati .

In USA ranked girls clubs, Top Hat comes in at #16. City at #22 LFA at #40 and CUP at #42. No wonder fewer coaches at GA playoffs vs ECNL playoffs. This really isn't an argument.

The other way to look at this is TH CitySC LFA and CUP are getting special looks from college recruiters.

Oh yeah.. follow any of those clubs on Instagram
And you will see how much love they get from YNT selections and P4&P5 colleges.

I mean come on… look at the bottom 5 clubs/teams in every ECNL conference. There are some absolutely terrible clubs in that league.

So the new U15 team (the most recent USYNT) just named in September:

Nineteen of the players come from clubs in the ECNL, four from the Girls Academy League and one from the new USL Women’s Super League in forward Stella Spitzer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep trying to figure out if this is somehow a way for ECNL to finish GA off for good. With several top GA clubs moving to ECNL this year, and rumors of 4-5 more next year, is this another moat to build around ECNL as the top league?

On the other hand this may be the reason why they want USSF to go along with it as, if they go it alone, there might be some defection to GA for Q1/Q2 born if ECNL goes SY and GA stays BY, which would be dumb for ECNL to do I would think.

Never going to happen, GA is here to stay.

ECNL had their chance to take over the youth soccer market when DA blew up and chose to not capitalize.

Wait until US Soccer implements NWSL Next via the top clubs in GA. ECNL parents minds will melt.

GA is literally already the minor leagues. Take a look at any credible rating and there might be one or two GA teams in any age group top 25. And VERY rarely any in the top 10. If they lose Top Hat, CUP, LFA it just waters it down even more. The current break down for something like college offers is 70% ECNL 20% GA and 10% all other. If GA loses 3-4 more top teams then those numbers keep going down. If you have a choice, not sure why you would stay at a GA program if there is an ECNL available unless you are in one of those very select few markets that has a super strong GA club, like Atlanta or Cincinnati .

In USA ranked girls clubs, Top Hat comes in at #16. City at #22 LFA at #40 and CUP at #42. No wonder fewer coaches at GA playoffs vs ECNL playoffs. This really isn't an argument.

The other way to look at this is TH CitySC LFA and CUP are getting special looks from college recruiters.

Oh yeah.. follow any of those clubs on Instagram
And you will see how much love they get from YNT selections and P4&P5 colleges.

I mean come on… look at the bottom 5 clubs/teams in every ECNL conference. There are some absolutely terrible clubs in that league.

So the new U15 team (the most recent USYNT) just named in September:

Nineteen of the players come from clubs in the ECNL, four from the Girls Academy League and one from the new USL Women’s Super League in forward Stella Spitzer.

And for the most recent u17 named earlier this month:

While there are current pros and college players on the World Cup Team, of the 21 players on the roster, 19 represent or represented ECNL clubs, one is from the Girls’ Academy and one is from the NPL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we have folks lying about switching to ST and lying about ECNL taking clubs from GA

It’s not even February yet. Holy smokes

Hey bud, it already started last year. Ask yourself why Nationals, Ukies, South Shore, Colorado Rush, Lonestar all left GA to go to ECNL. Do you really think more clubs wont go over this year? GA close to being in a death spiral.

Oh, and tell me all about the ECNL teams that moved over to GA in the last 5 years?

Should really become better informed before accusing people of lying. Let me guess, you are with a GA club and your DOC tells you everything is great? News for you is that your GA club has probably applied to ECNL and gotten turned down. Don't feel badly, it is happening to a lot of GA clubs. ECNL doesnt want to water down their organization too much so only taking the clubs that hurt the GA.

Bla bla bla... Nice ECNL hat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we have folks lying about switching to ST and lying about ECNL taking clubs from GA

It’s not even February yet. Holy smokes

Hey bud, it already started last year. Ask yourself why Nationals, Ukies, South Shore, Colorado Rush, Lonestar all left GA to go to ECNL. Do you really think more clubs wont go over this year? GA close to being in a death spiral.

Oh, and tell me all about the ECNL teams that moved over to GA in the last 5 years?

Should really become better informed before accusing people of lying. Let me guess, you are with a GA club and your DOC tells you everything is great? News for you is that your GA club has probably applied to ECNL and gotten turned down. Don't feel badly, it is happening to a lot of GA clubs. ECNL doesnt want to water down their organization too much so only taking the clubs that hurt the GA.

Bla bla bla... Nice ECNL hat

You know you’ve won the discussion when the other side starts the ad hominem attacks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we have folks lying about switching to ST and lying about ECNL taking clubs from GA

It’s not even February yet. Holy smokes

Hey bud, it already started last year. Ask yourself why Nationals, Ukies, South Shore, Colorado Rush, Lonestar all left GA to go to ECNL. Do you really think more clubs wont go over this year? GA close to being in a death spiral.

Oh, and tell me all about the ECNL teams that moved over to GA in the last 5 years?

Should really become better informed before accusing people of lying. Let me guess, you are with a GA club and your DOC tells you everything is great? News for you is that your GA club has probably applied to ECNL and gotten turned down. Don't feel badly, it is happening to a lot of GA clubs. ECNL doesnt want to water down their organization too much so only taking the clubs that hurt the GA.

Bla bla bla... Nice ECNL hat

You know you’ve won the discussion when the other side starts the ad hominem attacks!

Wear your ECNL hat with pride, safe in the knowing that nobody will know which team your kid plays for.

Even though you lose week after week you're a winner now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep trying to figure out if this is somehow a way for ECNL to finish GA off for good. With several top GA clubs moving to ECNL this year, and rumors of 4-5 more next year, is this another moat to build around ECNL as the top league?

On the other hand this may be the reason why they want USSF to go along with it as, if they go it alone, there might be some defection to GA for Q1/Q2 born if ECNL goes SY and GA stays BY, which would be dumb for ECNL to do I would think.

Never going to happen, GA is here to stay.

ECNL had their chance to take over the youth soccer market when DA blew up and chose to not capitalize.

Wait until US Soccer implements NWSL Next via the top clubs in GA. ECNL parents minds will melt.

GA is literally already the minor leagues. Take a look at any credible rating and there might be one or two GA teams in any age group top 25. And VERY rarely any in the top 10. If they lose Top Hat, CUP, LFA it just waters it down even more. The current break down for something like college offers is 70% ECNL 20% GA and 10% all other. If GA loses 3-4 more top teams then those numbers keep going down. If you have a choice, not sure why you would stay at a GA program if there is an ECNL available unless you are in one of those very select few markets that has a super strong GA club, like Atlanta or Cincinnati .

In USA ranked girls clubs, Top Hat comes in at #16. City at #22 LFA at #40 and CUP at #42. No wonder fewer coaches at GA playoffs vs ECNL playoffs. This really isn't an argument.

The other way to look at this is TH CitySC LFA and CUP are getting special looks from college recruiters.

Oh yeah.. follow any of those clubs on Instagram
And you will see how much love they get from YNT selections and P4&P5 colleges.

I mean come on… look at the bottom 5 clubs/teams in every ECNL conference. There are some absolutely terrible clubs in that league.

So the new U15 team (the most recent USYNT) just named in September:

Nineteen of the players come from clubs in the ECNL, four from the Girls Academy League and one from the new USL Women’s Super League in forward Stella Spitzer.

And for the most recent u17 named earlier this month:

While there are current pros and college players on the World Cup Team, of the 21 players on the roster, 19 represent or represented ECNL clubs, one is from the Girls’ Academy and one is from the NPL.

How can this be a U17 team with players who are 17 or older? Isn’t the U for under?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep trying to figure out if this is somehow a way for ECNL to finish GA off for good. With several top GA clubs moving to ECNL this year, and rumors of 4-5 more next year, is this another moat to build around ECNL as the top league?

On the other hand this may be the reason why they want USSF to go along with it as, if they go it alone, there might be some defection to GA for Q1/Q2 born if ECNL goes SY and GA stays BY, which would be dumb for ECNL to do I would think.

Never going to happen, GA is here to stay.

ECNL had their chance to take over the youth soccer market when DA blew up and chose to not capitalize.

Wait until US Soccer implements NWSL Next via the top clubs in GA. ECNL parents minds will melt.

GA is literally already the minor leagues. Take a look at any credible rating and there might be one or two GA teams in any age group top 25. And VERY rarely any in the top 10. If they lose Top Hat, CUP, LFA it just waters it down even more. The current break down for something like college offers is 70% ECNL 20% GA and 10% all other. If GA loses 3-4 more top teams then those numbers keep going down. If you have a choice, not sure why you would stay at a GA program if there is an ECNL available unless you are in one of those very select few markets that has a super strong GA club, like Atlanta or Cincinnati .

In USA ranked girls clubs, Top Hat comes in at #16. City at #22 LFA at #40 and CUP at #42. No wonder fewer coaches at GA playoffs vs ECNL playoffs. This really isn't an argument.

The other way to look at this is TH CitySC LFA and CUP are getting special looks from college recruiters.

Oh yeah.. follow any of those clubs on Instagram
And you will see how much love they get from YNT selections and P4&P5 colleges.

I mean come on… look at the bottom 5 clubs/teams in every ECNL conference. There are some absolutely terrible clubs in that league.

So the new U15 team (the most recent USYNT) just named in September:

Nineteen of the players come from clubs in the ECNL, four from the Girls Academy League and one from the new USL Women’s Super League in forward Stella Spitzer.

And for the most recent u17 named earlier this month:

While there are current pros and college players on the World Cup Team, of the 21 players on the roster, 19 represent or represented ECNL clubs, one is from the Girls’ Academy and one is from the NPL.

How can this be a U17 team with players who are 17 or older? Isn’t the U for under?

Lots of 2007 pros these days. Had to be 16 as of Jan 1. And 4 entered college early, which is becoming more common for elite players as well.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2024/09/schoepfer-names-usa-roster-for-2024-fifa-u-17-womens-world-cup-in-the-dominican-republic

[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.

No there are not. Peak participation was 2010, the 24 years since the 1999 World Cup have been relatively flat, so that “peak” is very relative. Change to BY was in 2016.

Please provide a link to the secret data source that supports your premise that shows a coinciding drop that began in 2016 or later.