ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

GA is a national affiliate of US Soccer. Both are also governed by US Soccer. No one switches without approval from US Soccer.

[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”?

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.

Decline over the last 15 years, https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/#:~:text=In a study conducted by,are pertinent for multiple reasons. Obviously if your industry is in decline for the last 15 years, you are looking for solutions.

[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

Hate us cuz they ain’t us!

[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”?

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.

Decline over the last 15 years, https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/#:~:text=In a study conducted by,are pertinent for multiple reasons. Obviously if your industry is in decline for the last 15 years, you are looking for solutions.

Yes, that is in line with what I just posted. The PP I was responding to (not sure if it’s you?) said that there is data that suggests it coincided with the 2016 BY change, that is the data I’d like to see if it exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

Yea, I don't belive you. Senior coat tails.

Every parent and player from a top team that I've met doesn't have time to go after other clubs and leagues. They barely have enough time to get in the reps needed to stay in the starting line up. In fact they could care less where the competition comes from they just want to play against high level competition.

Something to think about next time you put your ECNL hat on.

BTW the reason ECNL hats are such a joke is because they're like wearing an NFL hat. (Go Team) A fan or proud parent would wear the hat of the club their kid plays on. They want other to know what team or club they support. Someone wearing an ECNL hat is embarrassed to be seen wearing the hat of the club their kid plays for but still wants to gloat that they're in the.club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

Yea, I don't belive you. Senior coat tails.

Every parent and player from a top team that I've met doesn't have time to go after other clubs and leagues. They barely have enough time to get in the reps needed to stay in the starting line up. In fact they could care less where the competition comes from they just want to play against high level competition.

Something to think about next time you put your ECNL hat on.

BTW the reason ECNL hats are such a joke is because they're like wearing an NFL hat. (Go Team) A fan or proud parent would wear the hat of the club their kid plays on. They want other to know what team or club they support. Someone wearing an ECNL hat is embarrassed to be seen wearing the hat of the club their kid plays for but still wants to gloat that they're in the.club.

Damn… wow. Realest thing I’ve read here. They sport nothing but generic ECNL and showcase gear. Can’t even tell what team they play on 😅

[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:

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.

Decline over the last 15 years, https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/#:~:text=In a study conducted by,are pertinent for multiple reasons. Obviously if your industry is in decline for the last 15 years, you are looking for solutions.

Yes, that is in line with what I just posted. The PP I was responding to (not sure if it’s you?) said that there is data that suggests it coincided with the 2016 BY change, that is the data I’d like to see if it exists.

They was a decline before and after, you would need a good econometric model to ferret out causation and correlation (and COVID effects) but I just did a Google search and couldn't find anyone saying the change to CY didn't hurt youth soccer participation (whereas a handful said it did). Can you find anyone making such statements that going to CY helped 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:

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.

Decline over the last 15 years, https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/#:~:text=In a study conducted by,are pertinent for multiple reasons. Obviously if your industry is in decline for the last 15 years, you are looking for solutions.

Yes, that is in line with what I just posted. The PP I was responding to (not sure if it’s you?) said that there is data that suggests it coincided with the 2016 BY change, that is the data I’d like to see if it exists.

They was a decline before and after, you would need a good econometric model to ferret out causation and correlation (and COVID effects) but I just did a Google search and couldn't find anyone saying the change to CY didn't hurt youth soccer participation (whereas a handful said it did). Can you find anyone making such statements that going to CY helped youth soccer participation?

I haven't seen anyone try to make the opposite case it helped participation rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

Yea, I don't belive you. Senior coat tails.

Every parent and player from a top team that I've met doesn't have time to go after other clubs and leagues. They barely have enough time to get in the reps needed to stay in the starting line up. In fact they could care less where the competition comes from they just want to play against high level competition.

Something to think about next time you put your ECNL hat on.

BTW the reason ECNL hats are such a joke is because they're like wearing an NFL hat. (Go Team) A fan or proud parent would wear the hat of the club their kid plays on. They want other to know what team or club they support. Someone wearing an ECNL hat is embarrassed to be seen wearing the hat of the club their kid plays for but still wants to gloat that they're in the.club.

I am having a hard time figuring out what to make fun of with this post, should I go with the low hanging fruit of you not knowing the phrase “couldn't care less” or should I go with the fact that your “joke” was so unfunny that you had to explain it to everyone or that you seem to think that ECNL and GA are even close to being equal. So much material………..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

Yea, I don't belive you. Senior coat tails.

Every parent and player from a top team that I've met doesn't have time to go after other clubs and leagues. They barely have enough time to get in the reps needed to stay in the starting line up. In fact they could care less where the competition comes from they just want to play against high level competition.

Something to think about next time you put your ECNL hat on.

BTW the reason ECNL hats are such a joke is because they're like wearing an NFL hat. (Go Team) A fan or proud parent would wear the hat of the club their kid plays on. They want other to know what team or club they support. Someone wearing an ECNL hat is embarrassed to be seen wearing the hat of the club their kid plays for but still wants to gloat that they're in the.club.

I am having a hard time figuring out what to make fun of with this post, should I go with the low hanging fruit of you not knowing the phrase “couldn't care less” or should I go with the fact that your “joke” was so unfunny that you had to explain it to everyone or that you seem to think that ECNL and GA are even close to being equal. So much material………..

I think that post hit exactly where it was intended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is not accurate. This is wishful at best.

CURRENTLY both GA and ECNL have the same alignment re: age cutoffs.

ECNL vastly outperfoms GA in both college soccer matriculation and YNT / “US Soccer”. So I am not sure how you can come to any conclusion that “ECNL is for college…GA is for US Soccer (whatever that means)”

So how does the club your team your kid plays for do?

You seem like the type that loves riding the coat tails of teams that actually win.

I have no idea how that is relevant. My DC is doing very well, no issues either way re: the BY/SY proposed change.

Yea, I don't belive you. Senior coat tails.

Every parent and player from a top team that I've met doesn't have time to go after other clubs and leagues. They barely have enough time to get in the reps needed to stay in the starting line up. In fact they could care less where the competition comes from they just want to play against high level competition.

Something to think about next time you put your ECNL hat on.

BTW the reason ECNL hats are such a joke is because they're like wearing an NFL hat. (Go Team) A fan or proud parent would wear the hat of the club their kid plays on. They want other to know what team or club they support. Someone wearing an ECNL hat is embarrassed to be seen wearing the hat of the club their kid plays for but still wants to gloat that they're in the.club.

I've no clue what you're talking about. Are you ok?

[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:

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.

Decline over the last 15 years, https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/#:~:text=In a study conducted by,are pertinent for multiple reasons. Obviously if your industry is in decline for the last 15 years, you are looking for solutions.

Yes, that is in line with what I just posted. The PP I was responding to (not sure if it’s you?) said that there is data that suggests it coincided with the 2016 BY change, that is the data I’d like to see if it exists.

They was a decline before and after, you would need a good econometric model to ferret out causation and correlation (and COVID effects) but I just did a Google search and couldn't find anyone saying the change to CY didn't hurt youth soccer participation (whereas a handful said it did). Can you find anyone making such statements that going to CY helped youth soccer participation?

People say things...that doesn't make them accurate.

I'm just asking for a link to the data that PP referenced:
"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."

I've not seen any data that shows what PP said.

As for the onus of BY hurting or helping soccer participation - I didn't take a stand one way or the other. I just want to see the data that the PP said there are "some" "and also" (assuming more than one dataset....).