ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is a psychology and psychiatry research paper

[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:SOCAL soccer people not going down without a fight.

Good morning everyone!

After the email that I sent yesterday regarding the US Soccer proposed birth year changes I received quite a bit on feedback. Based on some of the feedback I decided to create a questionnaire that our club leadership can

complete regarding this issue. Directors of Coaching should be completing this questionnaire.

It is important that we get your collective answers, questions and comments so that I can have the necessary data to provide US Club Soccer prior to the US Soccer vote in November. Your voices should be heard and taken into

consideration. There should be full transparency on this discussion and those of you in the trenches and on the field should be included in discussions on important changes such as this. My aim is to make that happen and while

I'll probably make some enemies along the way, it's the right thing to do. SOCAL is the largest market and the deepest talent pool when it comes to youth soccer in this country. Your opinions matter!

So please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and please do so no later than Wednesday, October 16 at 5pm. I'll be sharing the information with US Club Soccer later this week.

CLICK HERE for the questionnaire

Thank you

Michelle

This is just a show. The writing is already on the wall. There are too many gains for ECNL to move to SY. They will not pause. 11/22 is not a "vote" actually. It is an announcement.

Why go through all effort to collect club feedback on if BY or SY makes the most sense for SOCAL league members if it's a "done deal".

US Club Soccer and SOCAL make a lot of $$$ doing nothing other than maintaining a registry of players. If you alienate your customers they're going to go somewhere else for the same service.

The problem is the big clubs affiliated with SOCAL have ECNL, ECRL, NPL teams which will they openly go against ECNL?but I agree SOCAL league has a lot of influence and many of the teams are not playing in the higher level leagues.

And you are forgetting that they have paying customers with real concerns

The only problem is yes people will be upset but some people will be happy so that will cancel itself out. If anything your entry level club family will like the idea of little sussie getting to play with some friends from school that she has not been able to play with. Regardless of when they are born.

When you start getting to the RL/ECNL level is where parents will be upset. But ultimately they will just have to deal with the change if its approved, as this isn’t the clubs fault it fact they have deniability that this was above their pay grade.

In the end kids will still want to play soccer and life will go on. Just like when they switch to birth year. Yes change sucks but ultimately we all will just have to deal with it.

Or change nothing keep everything as is with BY and there's no risk for club owners.

If your neck was on the line which option would you choose?

Starting to see why BY makes more sense then another SY experiment?

I agree, I’m for SY but if I was a DOC it would make me nervous to have to make completely new teams.

Why? Every single club will have to go through the same change. If you’ve been focused on player development rather than win at all costs you should be comfortable creating a team from your existing NL and RL teams. I think the only cause for extreme concern is moving GKers. Losing a great one on your team could really hit morale if the ‘new’ team faces a losing year.

I think you have this reversed, because you’re assuming win at all costs = all January babies.

Win at all cost approaches will have the easiest time with this change.

Develop the player approaches are going to really be stuck, and in some cases will not have full rosters because the development plans and timelines will all be jacked up overnight.

Complete disagree but maybe club specific. A team in our club has 100% relied on a single scorer. She’s amazing, but no other player takes a shot, they pass to her. I’m guessing this has affected other players development and confidence. Similar situation with the center D. If the team/coach has relied too heavily on stars, they will be very nervous about the change.

I can see why players would leave the club because of BY to SY changes.

Please explain to me how changing from BY to SY will bring in new players to the club.

Please re-read the thread and focus on impact of playing with your grade in younger years. I’m not re-explaining what’s already been said. Also listen to the podcast bc they explain the reasons for the change.

I'm seeing parents of trapped players argument about why BY to SY works for them.

I'm seeing ECNLs argument about why BY to SY works for them.

I'm not seeing anyone explain how changing from BY to SY works for club owners.

Club owners get screwed in all this. They end up the bad guys with pissed off parents, all kinds of work to implement the change, and less paying customers after all the effort.

Well, trapped 2010 player here. They would’ve had my $3k this year and not our local vball club owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As many people have already mentioned, discussions about this have clearly gone on for months already. From the infamous podcast transcript..."clubs and people putting together rosters" agree short term disruption is worth it for long term outcome...

Speaker 3: 4:47
That is not ideal. The overwhelming feedback we've had and I'm sure, doug, you can confirm this, but the overwhelming thought that we've had in discussions with clubs, with board members at various organizations, is that the transition will be messy as teams are destabilized and rosters are redone, but that the long-term positive of eliminating the trapped eighth grader, the 18-19 glut, roster glut and the induction issues of not playing with school year friends that the long term is worth the short-term instability. Obviously, people have varying levels of tolerance for change and I think there are some people that have expressed the desire not to have any sort of problems in the short-term and will just leave things as it is. But the majority of people seem to say when I say people, I'm talking about the operators, the club people that are actually in charge of putting together rosters are saying they would support doing this as a one-time challenge and disruption to get a better long-term outcome. Doug, are you hearing anything different?

Speaker 5: 5:54
Yeah, I mean I have not talked to anyone who has thought this was a bad idea to go back to school year. Obviously our interactions, christian, are with club operators, primarily the people on the ground, so I take that to mean that those folks would be definitely in favor of it, although to your point, it would be a messy kind of thing. I am hopeful that the decision is made in short order because I do think the rumors are causing some significant anxiety among players and families who don't know kind of what's going to happen, because there will be destabilization to point about on the team. So hopefully this time frame can happen because it does require some planning and communication on the club front to make this happen. But I agree, and I think the people that I talk to generally agree, that the long term is is worth, worth the short term yeah, I mean to put some specifics on it.

Well at least they understand what club owners are thinking.

I don't agree that being able to play with kids in you grade really matters on competitive teams. (Rec teams are different)

The biggest issue in all this is that Club owners are the ones that have to do all the work + make less money. ECNL gets the glory. Trapped players get to play down.

There's just not enough in the deal for club owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many people have already mentioned, discussions about this have clearly gone on for months already. From the infamous podcast transcript..."clubs and people putting together rosters" agree short term disruption is worth it for long term outcome...

Speaker 3: 4:47
That is not ideal. The overwhelming feedback we've had and I'm sure, doug, you can confirm this, but the overwhelming thought that we've had in discussions with clubs, with board members at various organizations, is that the transition will be messy as teams are destabilized and rosters are redone, but that the long-term positive of eliminating the trapped eighth grader, the 18-19 glut, roster glut and the induction issues of not playing with school year friends that the long term is worth the short-term instability. Obviously, people have varying levels of tolerance for change and I think there are some people that have expressed the desire not to have any sort of problems in the short-term and will just leave things as it is. But the majority of people seem to say when I say people, I'm talking about the operators, the club people that are actually in charge of putting together rosters are saying they would support doing this as a one-time challenge and disruption to get a better long-term outcome. Doug, are you hearing anything different?

Speaker 5: 5:54
Yeah, I mean I have not talked to anyone who has thought this was a bad idea to go back to school year. Obviously our interactions, christian, are with club operators, primarily the people on the ground, so I take that to mean that those folks would be definitely in favor of it, although to your point, it would be a messy kind of thing. I am hopeful that the decision is made in short order because I do think the rumors are causing some significant anxiety among players and families who don't know kind of what's going to happen, because there will be destabilization to point about on the team. So hopefully this time frame can happen because it does require some planning and communication on the club front to make this happen. But I agree, and I think the people that I talk to generally agree, that the long term is is worth, worth the short term yeah, I mean to put some specifics on it.

Well at least they understand what club owners are thinking.

I don't agree that being able to play with kids in you grade really matters on competitive teams. (Rec teams are different)

The biggest issue in all this is that Club owners are the ones that have to do all the work + make less money. ECNL gets the glory. Trapped players get to play down.

There's just not enough in the deal for club owners.

When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

[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:SOCAL soccer people not going down without a fight.

Good morning everyone!

After the email that I sent yesterday regarding the US Soccer proposed birth year changes I received quite a bit on feedback. Based on some of the feedback I decided to create a questionnaire that our club leadership can

complete regarding this issue. Directors of Coaching should be completing this questionnaire.

It is important that we get your collective answers, questions and comments so that I can have the necessary data to provide US Club Soccer prior to the US Soccer vote in November. Your voices should be heard and taken into

consideration. There should be full transparency on this discussion and those of you in the trenches and on the field should be included in discussions on important changes such as this. My aim is to make that happen and while

I'll probably make some enemies along the way, it's the right thing to do. SOCAL is the largest market and the deepest talent pool when it comes to youth soccer in this country. Your opinions matter!

So please take a few minutes to complete this questionnaire and please do so no later than Wednesday, October 16 at 5pm. I'll be sharing the information with US Club Soccer later this week.

CLICK HERE for the questionnaire

Thank you

Michelle

This is just a show. The writing is already on the wall. There are too many gains for ECNL to move to SY. They will not pause. 11/22 is not a "vote" actually. It is an announcement.

Why go through all effort to collect club feedback on if BY or SY makes the most sense for SOCAL league members if it's a "done deal".

US Club Soccer and SOCAL make a lot of $$$ doing nothing other than maintaining a registry of players. If you alienate your customers they're going to go somewhere else for the same service.

The problem is the big clubs affiliated with SOCAL have ECNL, ECRL, NPL teams which will they openly go against ECNL?but I agree SOCAL league has a lot of influence and many of the teams are not playing in the higher level leagues.

And you are forgetting that they have paying customers with real concerns

The only problem is yes people will be upset but some people will be happy so that will cancel itself out. If anything your entry level club family will like the idea of little sussie getting to play with some friends from school that she has not been able to play with. Regardless of when they are born.

When you start getting to the RL/ECNL level is where parents will be upset. But ultimately they will just have to deal with the change if its approved, as this isn’t the clubs fault it fact they have deniability that this was above their pay grade.

In the end kids will still want to play soccer and life will go on. Just like when they switch to birth year. Yes change sucks but ultimately we all will just have to deal with it.

Or change nothing keep everything as is with BY and there's no risk for club owners.

If your neck was on the line which option would you choose?

Starting to see why BY makes more sense then another SY experiment?

I agree, I’m for SY but if I was a DOC it would make me nervous to have to make completely new teams.

Why? Every single club will have to go through the same change. If you’ve been focused on player development rather than win at all costs you should be comfortable creating a team from your existing NL and RL teams. I think the only cause for extreme concern is moving GKers. Losing a great one on your team could really hit morale if the ‘new’ team faces a losing year.

I think you have this reversed, because you’re assuming win at all costs = all January babies.

Win at all cost approaches will have the easiest time with this change.

Develop the player approaches are going to really be stuck, and in some cases will not have full rosters because the development plans and timelines will all be jacked up overnight.

Complete disagree but maybe club specific. A team in our club has 100% relied on a single scorer. She’s amazing, but no other player takes a shot, they pass to her. I’m guessing this has affected other players development and confidence. Similar situation with the center D. If the team/coach has relied too heavily on stars, they will be very nervous about the change.

I can see why players would leave the club because of BY to SY changes.

Please explain to me how changing from BY to SY will bring in new players to the club.

Please re-read the thread and focus on impact of playing with your grade in younger years. I’m not re-explaining what’s already been said. Also listen to the podcast bc they explain the reasons for the change.

I'm seeing parents of trapped players argument about why BY to SY works for them.

I'm seeing ECNLs argument about why BY to SY works for them.

I'm not seeing anyone explain how changing from BY to SY works for club owners.

Club owners get screwed in all this. They end up the bad guys with pissed off parents, all kinds of work to implement the change, and less paying customers after all the effort.

Well, trapped 2010 player here. They would’ve had my $3k this year and not our local vball club owner.

My trapped player is already jumping in on sessions at the top clubs around us. She's a 2010 now but will be able to play 2011 if SY happens.

So in this case one club lost a player and another gained a player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As many people have already mentioned, discussions about this have clearly gone on for months already. From the infamous podcast transcript..."clubs and people putting together rosters" agree short term disruption is worth it for long term outcome...

Speaker 3: 4:47
That is not ideal. The overwhelming feedback we've had and I'm sure, doug, you can confirm this, but the overwhelming thought that we've had in discussions with clubs, with board members at various organizations, is that the transition will be messy as teams are destabilized and rosters are redone, but that the long-term positive of eliminating the trapped eighth grader, the 18-19 glut, roster glut and the induction issues of not playing with school year friends that the long term is worth the short-term instability. Obviously, people have varying levels of tolerance for change and I think there are some people that have expressed the desire not to have any sort of problems in the short-term and will just leave things as it is. But the majority of people seem to say when I say people, I'm talking about the operators, the club people that are actually in charge of putting together rosters are saying they would support doing this as a one-time challenge and disruption to get a better long-term outcome. Doug, are you hearing anything different?

Speaker 5: 5:54
Yeah, I mean I have not talked to anyone who has thought this was a bad idea to go back to school year. Obviously our interactions, christian, are with club operators, primarily the people on the ground, so I take that to mean that those folks would be definitely in favor of it, although to your point, it would be a messy kind of thing. I am hopeful that the decision is made in short order because I do think the rumors are causing some significant anxiety among players and families who don't know kind of what's going to happen, because there will be destabilization to point about on the team. So hopefully this time frame can happen because it does require some planning and communication on the club front to make this happen. But I agree, and I think the people that I talk to generally agree, that the long term is is worth, worth the short term yeah, I mean to put some specifics on it.

Well at least they understand what club owners are thinking.

I don't agree that being able to play with kids in you grade really matters on competitive teams. (Rec teams are different)

The biggest issue in all this is that Club owners are the ones that have to do all the work + make less money. ECNL gets the glory. Trapped players get to play down.

There's just not enough in the deal for club owners.

When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

No it not, also it's the proper nomenclature.

Right now everyone is BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this was explained before and I couldn't find it in the past 177 pages. The proposed change will be making the current system of pooling ages by Jan 1 - Dec 31 and shifting it to Aug 1 - July 31? Or is there something else they're planning by verifying your graduating year to find where you should be placed?

Does anybody know the answer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this was explained before and I couldn't find it in the past 177 pages. The proposed change will be making the current system of pooling ages by Jan 1 - Dec 31 and shifting it to Aug 1 - July 31? Or is there something else they're planning by verifying your graduating year to find where you should be placed?

Does anybody know the answer?

It hasn't been clarified yet.

Which means SY will fall apart because the definition can be many things.

ECNL will end up providing waivers.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody know how they did it before?

[Anonymous]

August 1-July 31. Worked for years

[Anonymous]

When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

100% People will never understand the trapped player point of view unless they’ve had a trapped player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know how they did it before?

I just told you. Leagues provided waivers for kids that were a certain grade but older than their classmates for whatever reason.

Parents will take advantage of this by redshirting their kid and not starting kindergarten until a year later than normal.

There will be private schools that specialize in this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

100% People will never understand the trapped player point of view unless they’ve had a trapped player.

My kid is a trapped player.

I know exactly what playing down means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

100% People will never understand the trapped player point of view unless they’ve had a trapped player.

My kid is a trapped player.

I know exactly what playing down means.

Playing with their grade level is not "playing down" .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you use language like "trapped players get to play down" it demonstrates your bias and misunderstanding of what that actually means.

100% People will never understand the trapped player point of view unless they’ve had a trapped player.

My kid is a trapped player.

I know exactly what playing down means.

Playing with their grade level is not "playing down" .

It is when all leagues are BY