ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a calculator that US Soccer has to check what age group your kid is in. Note, it doesn't ask for grade.

https://www.ussoccer.com/ecosystem-review/player-registration/age-group-calculator

Stop! Facts are not what we want.

We don’t want peace we want problems.

I just tried that calculator and entered an August birthday and my computer froze and blue screened. So check and mate.

The fact your computer sucks doesn’t prove your point. I tried Aug 1 2011 it showed U15 for 26/27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here not going to say where.

This thread is highly entertaining. The person that keeps kicking you in the nuts over and over about how things work with olders is 100% correct.

You dont want your kid playing down a grade. It causes so many problems that are easily avoidable by just playing on a team thats your kids grade in school.

Thank you coach wherever.

I know I'm correct because I'm living it right now with an older who has played since they were 3. For all the youngers parents that think they know everything. I also have a 2016 which means I'll be around for a while.

If you commented on your own post that is hilarious and also very sad. I’m 95% you’re just posting on your own comments.

If I’m wrong I’m glad you found someone who can join you on your adventure to fight parents to make their kids play up.

I wish more parents felt shame and embrassment in playing down. Unfortunately playing down seems to be what all the Karen soccer moms are pushing for right now.

If anything, it's because the current system isn't about grade, it's about age, so people are expecting the same under the new system. If you think there should be shame now, then you're calling for that for the majority of players on all the top teams now who likely have some players who play a grade younger on their teams.

Kind of...

Under BY the only not normal situation parents would ever see is trapped players playing up in grade. Since 90% of the parents werent around in 2016 (the last year of SY before switching to BY). People dont remember all the issues SY opens up. Specifically some Aug and Sept birthdays playjng down a grade. Because people arent experienced with the probelms with playing down they are jumping on the bandwagon thinking its the next best thing. (when its not)

Anything is better than being the youngest. College isn't likely for youngest anyway. US boys don't have many D1 college slots and the youngest month for girls doesn't either.

Why doesnt "anything is better" include playing on the B team with players your grade?

If you have to ask, you don't have a Nov or Dec kid. Anything is better. SY stinks for July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a fun topic.

My daughter had private training tonight
He’s ECNL club director in California for a big club. He mentioned big changes are going to be announced in about 6 months.

I tried to ask said he wasn’t allowed to say anything specific right now.

Who’s got the best guess?

MLSN forces all its clubs to join GA on the girls side. GA rebrands and partners with NWSL.

Why would an ECNL club director know that (unless GA and ECNL are merging?)

ENCL and USYS are merging ... that is the news, not GA.

In theory that could work ... USYS has a great structure/presence in every state and is strong with u-littles and annual state tournaments. It's top-tier national league, which used to be much better, currently falling apart as it always lost most of its talent and struggled to attract scouts, whereas that's ECNL specialty. BUT ECNL emerged because USYS was too large/too hard to change. Merging may rob it of its nimbleness to adapt/evolve at the top-tier.

That theory seems pretty far fetched to me. But this "USYS has a great structure/presence in every state" is precisely what is wrong with USYS. There are 50+ state orgs, all run as little fiefdoms. It cannot ever modernize as long as the current structure is in place. ECNL merging with USYS would be like Target deciding to merge with Sears.

Norcal is trying to do this and its not going well.

Localized leagues give control over an area. Unfortunately localization is the exact opposite methodology of national leagues like MLSN, GA, ECNL. The two groups are like oil and water. They just cant be integrated into a single entity.

I worked at a large state USYS org in the early 00s. The writing was on the wall then that they needed to fold into a regional or a national structure. Once online registration became a thing, there was no reason for the majority of our office (or any of these state offices) to exist. But here we are 20 years later and they are all still around...

The reason your office is still around is because the local league is someone's business. A national league is free to buy them out or create their own local league in that area. But they wont do this because that would be expensive and talk is free/cheap.

I mean, that is precisely what is happening! US Club is running a ton more local leagues. Large clubs are banding together and just forming their own internal leagues. Every year, fewer teams are in these USYS leagues and fewer teams play in the state cups etc.

The only ones that will eventually exist will be in very rural areas where no one sees $s to create something. USYS is the USPS of the soccer world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a calculator that US Soccer has to check what age group your kid is in. Note, it doesn't ask for grade.

https://www.ussoccer.com/ecosystem-review/player-registration/age-group-calculator

Stop! Facts are not what we want.

We don’t want peace we want problems.

I just tried that calculator and entered an August birthday and my computer froze and blue screened. So check and mate.

The fact your computer sucks doesn’t prove your point. I tried Aug 1 2011 it showed U15 for 26/27.

Jesus bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Eh, it makes some sense in that they are doing well, winning in markets, why change? There is also the argument that they are trying to align themselves with a european pro model and therefore will not change.

I think it does make sense to change to continue to directly compete against their competitors, it allows their P2P clubs to better organize themselves, and makes the pipeline of players consistent. Basically, changing to SY allows them to continue doing what they have been successful at. With GA now going SY, the talk of BY clubs and a whole ecosystem of BY clubs, tournaments, etc. is done. And the Euro model talk only really applies to a few of the academies. Most of it (the P2P MLSN1 clubs and all the new MLSN2 clubs) is just for marketing and is no different from all of the other US youth leagues.

This is probably the most balanced response we’ve had in the last 100 pages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a fun topic.

My daughter had private training tonight
He’s ECNL club director in California for a big club. He mentioned big changes are going to be announced in about 6 months.

I tried to ask said he wasn’t allowed to say anything specific right now.

Who’s got the best guess?

MLSN forces all its clubs to join GA on the girls side. GA rebrands and partners with NWSL.

Why would an ECNL club director know that (unless GA and ECNL are merging?)

ENCL and USYS are merging ... that is the news, not GA.

In theory that could work ... USYS has a great structure/presence in every state and is strong with u-littles and annual state tournaments. It's top-tier national league, which used to be much better, currently falling apart as it always lost most of its talent and struggled to attract scouts, whereas that's ECNL specialty. BUT ECNL emerged because USYS was too large/too hard to change. Merging may rob it of its nimbleness to adapt/evolve at the top-tier.

That theory seems pretty far fetched to me. But this "USYS has a great structure/presence in every state" is precisely what is wrong with USYS. There are 50+ state orgs, all run as little fiefdoms. It cannot ever modernize as long as the current structure is in place. ECNL merging with USYS would be like Target deciding to merge with Sears.

Norcal is trying to do this and its not going well.

Localized leagues give control over an area. Unfortunately localization is the exact opposite methodology of national leagues like MLSN, GA, ECNL. The two groups are like oil and water. They just cant be integrated into a single entity.

I worked at a large state USYS org in the early 00s. The writing was on the wall then that they needed to fold into a regional or a national structure. Once online registration became a thing, there was no reason for the majority of our office (or any of these state offices) to exist. But here we are 20 years later and they are all still around...

The reason your office is still around is because the local league is someone's business. A national league is free to buy them out or create their own local league in that area. But they wont do this because that would be expensive and talk is free/cheap.

I mean, that is precisely what is happening! US Club is running a ton more local leagues. Large clubs are banding together and just forming their own internal leagues. Every year, fewer teams are in these USYS leagues and fewer teams play in the state cups etc.

The only ones that will eventually exist will be in very rural areas where no one sees $s to create something. USYS is the USPS of the soccer world.

I agree with your assessment on USYS. Where I live its the land of misfit toys league. I dont think they'll ever be able to change this perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a calculator that US Soccer has to check what age group your kid is in. Note, it doesn't ask for grade.

https://www.ussoccer.com/ecosystem-review/player-registration/age-group-calculator

Stop! Facts are not what we want.

We don’t want peace we want problems.

I just tried that calculator and entered an August birthday and my computer froze and blue screened. So check and mate.

The fact your computer sucks doesn’t prove your point. I tried Aug 1 2011 it showed U15 for 26/27.

Jesus bro.

My names not Jesus.
And I’m not your brah…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

Hey smart guy both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. Which means both leagues can choose to do whatever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

Hey smart guy both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. Which means both leagues can choose to do whatever they want.

MLSN could and should but GA probably benefits more from being in the common ecosystem with ECNL, USYA, etc than sanctioning itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

Hey smart guy both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. Which means both leagues can choose to do whatever they want.

Yes, and they already said they are going SY...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

Hey smart guy both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. Which means both leagues can choose to do whatever they want.

MLSN could and should but GA probably benefits more from being in the common ecosystem with ECNL, USYA, etc than sanctioning itself.

There is no mystery. GA is going SY, they already confirmed this. This: "All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs." Is 100% true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLSN staying BY makes zero sense in the business sense. That model is already on the edge with all the travel, rules, etc. parents are growing tired of it and MLSN2 is going to have talent issues with many parents and kids not wanting all the restrictions and travel. A lot of kids are multi sports athletes and don’t want to play soccer in HS either, but don’t want soccer matches in the middle of winter. Many parents and kids are wanting the NPL route now and some of these kids are super talented and could be MLSN1 starters. Staying BY would reduce MLSN player pool further.

Here’s how it will work. All of soccer up to u13 will become SY. Those top teams/players will be predominantly Aug-Mar kids. At u13, if faced with an age cutoff change, those parents and kids will overwhelmingly choose a SY cutoff league to maintain their trajectory (not saying that is right or wrong, it will just be true). Therefore MLsN will lose priority in the top player pool.

There was some argument back a few hundred pages that insisted that MLSN (while partnering with GA) would have complete BY clubs. So clubs would have MLSN1/2 and GA for BY and then create youth leagues for BY. And complete BY tournaments etc. That obviously looks much less likely now that we know GA is going SY.

Thats not what they said. They said IF some leagues stayed BY and others changed to SY that tournaments sponsored by different clubs would have either BY or SY groupings. They also said that if some leagues stayed BY there was a very good chance that they would need to create youngers BY leagues. GA probably considered all this and decided against it.

I mean yeah, that kinda summarizes exactly what I said just in a longer format. With some added IFs. Also, leagues cannot decide to be BY, they will be what their parent org is. All USYS, GA, US Club, AYSO, leagues will be SY. There are no IFs.

Hey smart guy both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. Which means both leagues can choose to do whatever they want.

MLSN could and should but GA probably benefits more from being in the common ecosystem with ECNL, USYA, etc than sanctioning itself.

Again both MLSN and GA can sanction themselves. GA used to use USSSA for sanctioning but I think theyre doing it on their own now.

For the ECNL people that dont know what sanctioning means. GA can create and issue their own player paperwork/cards. Basically they function as a league and what US Club does for ECNL but all as one entity instead of two seperate entities. GA can also sanction other leagues if they want to.