ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When does the schedule come out? MLS NExt already posted their schedule for the 24-25 season.

Clubs have the tentative schedule pending exact time & location but you know which weekend you have away games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

I can't believe ecnl kids are still competing in tournaments and it's almost August

Then some of these kids have those crazy injuries prevalent HS crazy training run-a-thons starting in two weeks

[Anonymous]

I have talked with a few different coaches and club directors and they think it is a real possibility that ECNL make some kind of change that will be related to grade in school grouping for all their league games, showcases, and playoffs.
Starting the 25/26 Fall season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

You sound a bit silly and very uninformed thinking biobanding and trapped players are the same situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

You sound a bit silly and very uninformed thinking biobanding and trapped players are the same situations.

Where does it say they are the same?

They have similarities in that they are already approved ways to allow overage players to play a year down. Aka, they are both loopholes in the calendar year scheme.

I think it was the 2nd podcast where they used a scientist to shred biobanding so I don't think they will be using that semantics for their engineered loophole.

[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:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

You sound a bit silly and very uninformed thinking biobanding and trapped players are the same situations.

Where does it say they are the same?

They have similarities in that they are already approved ways to allow overage players to play a year down. Aka, they are both loopholes in the calendar year scheme.

I think it was the 2nd podcast where they used a scientist to shred biobanding so I don't think they will be using that semantics for their engineered loophole.

It is impossible to shred biobanding unless you can prove late bloomers do not exist and you can produce opposing verifiable numbers that most academy players and elite youth teams aren't dominated by DOB's in the first two quarters.

Only a fool and blowhard can challenge the facts of Relative Age Effect which has been proven in multiple academic studies.
It's not a loophole, but unscrupulous organizations may abuse.

Trapped kids is strictly a school year date scenario.
Has absolutely nothing to do with size or maturation.

[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:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

You sound a bit silly and very uninformed thinking biobanding and trapped players are the same situations.

Where does it say they are the same?

They have similarities in that they are already approved ways to allow overage players to play a year down. Aka, they are both loopholes in the calendar year scheme.

I think it was the 2nd podcast where they used a scientist to shred biobanding so I don't think they will be using that semantics for their engineered loophole.

It is impossible to shred biobanding unless you can prove late bloomers do not exist and you can produce opposing verifiable numbers that most academy players and elite youth teams aren't dominated by DOB's in the first two quarters.

Only a fool and blowhard can challenge the facts of Relative Age Effect which has been proven in multiple academic studies.
It's not a loophole, but unscrupulous organizations may abuse.

Trapped kids is strictly a school year date scenario.
Has absolutely nothing to do with size or maturation.

Sorry you gotta all but hurt, was merely pointing out that they are both just exceptions to the calendar age rule so creating another wouldn't be that big of a deal.

You have to listen to the ECNL podcasts (aka the Genesis of this thread) to understand their position on biobanding, relative age effects, etc. (note that I didn't take one).

[Anonymous]

This is not happening. There is no approval that has even been sought. That will not come quickly. At best this will be 26/27.

[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:The ECNL could change the age cut line if they wanted. Of course they could. But, there is little incentive to do so. The role (and input) of the USSF is zero when it comes to league management of the ECNL.

There's a reason why all the major youth soccer leagues use birth year, the USSF. They regulate all the sanctioned tournaments and leagues. I doubt ECNL would want to be the odd league out. There are very few rules that a league can modify. The age matrix is not one of them.

ECNL formed because USSF told girls and women players they don’t matter at all to the USSF. It’s why the league exists in the first place. Club directors across the country would be more than happy to tell the USSF to eat dog droppings. Certainly that’s what the USSF told the clubs and girls/women to do - and still is doing as a matter of fact.

The ECNL leadership will act in their own best interests.

LMAO! you're drawing on something from 15 years ago. Times have changed and ECNL knows their place in the hierarchy.

15 years ago? What the heck are you talking about? The USSF shut down the Development Academy program - boys and girls - the moment the Yedlin decision came out.

The USSF proved, again, that it does not give a rats rear end about helping youth soccer clubs. And the clubs don’t give a rats rear end about the USSF. They will do whatever they think is best for themselves.

Are you implying that ECNL was only formed after the Yedlin decision? Huh?

If clubs don't care, why aren't any clubs using an age matrix based on school year. They all use calendar year for a reason, they don't set the rules.

Look - it’s obvious you know zero about the ussf/ecnl/da/mlsnext fiascos. That’s fine. You don’t have to know. But, never ever think that non-mls clubs care -at all - what the ussf does or wants. Every club director in the country knows that the ussf has knifed their clubs before, and will happily do it again.

They make decisions based on what is good for their league and member clubs. And the ussf can xxxx off.

The PP is correct. ECNL can’t make that change competitively without USSF approval. Clubs and ECNL can have internal only programs that are unique, but anything that would reach outside or be open would be required to get approval. It’s due to the sanctioning system that rolls up to the various confederations.

Finally someone that understands the role of a sanctioning system. Thank you!

Should be a quick approval with trapped players and biobanding players already having set a loophole precedent. ECNL could to create a new class of trapped/biobanders born in Q4 that can play in the year prior if desired from U13 on or even in their pre ECNL leagues.

You sound a bit silly and very uninformed thinking biobanding and trapped players are the same situations.

Where does it say they are the same?

They have similarities in that they are already approved ways to allow overage players to play a year down. Aka, they are both loopholes in the calendar year scheme.

I think it was the 2nd podcast where they used a scientist to shred biobanding so I don't think they will be using that semantics for their engineered loophole.

It is impossible to shred biobanding unless you can prove late bloomers do not exist and you can produce opposing verifiable numbers that most academy players and elite youth teams aren't dominated by DOB's in the first two quarters.

Only a fool and blowhard can challenge the facts of Relative Age Effect which has been proven in multiple academic studies.
It's not a loophole, but unscrupulous organizations may abuse.

Trapped kids is strictly a school year date scenario.
Has absolutely nothing to do with size or maturation.

Sorry you gotta all but hurt, was merely pointing out that they are both just exceptions to the calendar age rule so creating another wouldn't be that big of a deal.

You have to listen to the ECNL podcasts (aka the Genesis of this thread) to understand their position on biobanding, relative age effects, etc. (note that I didn't take one).

ECNL is not a high enough organization or league in the soccer ecosystem for anyone to need to understand their position on already established conclusions by higher level organizations.

[Anonymous]

ECNL “Girls” is the highest organization for producing elite players and preparing for college. They don’t need anyone. As nice as it would be for all the leagues to hold hands ECNL doesn’t need anyone at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not happening. There is no approval that has even been sought. That will not come quickly. At best this will be 26/27.

I have heard that it is happening to an extent and wheels are in motion as ideas for what exactly to do are being drafted.
25/26 will be smaller change maybe some kind of hybrid model to get rid of trapped players 26/27 will probably be school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL “Girls” is the highest organization for producing elite players and preparing for college. They don’t need anyone. As nice as it would be for all the leagues to hold hands ECNL doesn’t need anyone at this point.

USSF USYNT USYS etc will find your statement quite amusing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not happening. There is no approval that has even been sought. That will not come quickly. At best this will be 26/27.

I have heard that it is happening to an extent and wheels are in motion as ideas for what exactly to do are being drafted.
25/26 will be smaller change maybe some kind of hybrid model to get rid of trapped players 26/27 will probably be school year.

I have heard 😂