ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

Grad year is for school soccer not club 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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

[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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

Here's a couple more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_Player_Rule_(MLS)

[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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

Here's a couple more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_Player_Rule_(MLS)

Dang, only $80k a year. I Calling them suckers is harsh but the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

Grad year is for school soccer not club soccer.

its SY/1-7/31 with a rule that players must play with their grade

[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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

Here's a couple more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_Player_Rule_(MLS)

Dang, only $80k a year. I Calling them suckers is harsh but the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

80k seems pretty good for playing s game

[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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

Here's a couple more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_Player_Rule_(MLS)

Dang, only $80k a year. I Calling them suckers is harsh but the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

80k seems pretty good for playing s game

It isn't.

[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:It's funny, not really, but there are so many exceptions that our friend doesn't consider, like the July kid in the lower grade. Can't play with their grade, ever! Yet with this poster, if you are an Aug or Sep kid in that situation, you need to be shamed into the sun. So wrong and unnecessary.

Just stubborn and stupid.

If this becomes an issue all you need to do is chamge the eligibility window from 8/1-731 to 7/1-6/30 as long as theres a rule that says players must play on a team thats predominantly their grade in achool.

No, rule should be implemented. For so many reasons articulated, people should be allowed to do it -- IF THEY WANT.

NO THEY SHOULDNT

There, feel better? Ican capitalize letters also.

It's too obvious that you want to create rules that would create more problems than they solve to advantage your daughter at the expense of others. This is why the just a rule here, just a rule that slippery slope has to be held at bay.

Not even close. The only thing thats obvious is that players should not be allowed to play down on a grade below them team. It causes problems that dont need to exist. Feel free to play on the B team with players your kids grade in school if they dont make the A team.

All this does is it enlargers the age group that advantages older kids by removing a ton of Aug/Sep players from the pool.

It doesnt enlarge or contract anything. Teams are the same size before and after the rule. It just better allocates eligible players within the 8/1-7/31 grouping to their grade in school.

If this is done, it effectively makes age pools 13-14 months -- with Aug/Sep bdays the youngest. This is because people make decisions on grade for all sorts of reasons and usually not sports. Those Aug/Sep players (and clubs) will be disadvantaged, especially in states where cutoffs lessen the number of kids in the older grades.

So what?

95% of games are regional league which means you'll be playing against players the same age. For the 5% of the time you play outside of the regional league you might play against a couple of players that are 1 or maybe 2 months older and this all depends on the school district.

Once players are older 1-2 months of RAE means nothing. I would also argue that it means nothing at younger ages as well. But I dont really buy into it.

How about players 20 to 23 months older? Are you going to be OK with that?

Right on que the person that irrationally hates MLS Next + biobanding starts chirping.

As I've said before I dont really like biobanding. But MLS and ECNL are different leagues with different overall end goals. Your kid plays ECNL so you cant comprehend the pro angle. Which is what biobanding is supposed to help enable.

The so called "Pro" path is for sucker like you.

Here's a couple more...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homegrown_Player_Rule_(MLS)

Nothing to do with p2p MLS. Pay $30K a year total, and has to play down. It is the definition of a sucker.

[Anonymous]

Such a moms basement dwelling loser.

[Anonymous]

A recent thread on Reddit had someone saying their club is all staying BY to accommodate MLSN. Did not see that as a possibility.

[Anonymous]

I know this is a mostly ECNL argument from what I’ve gathered last few pages, but my daughters 11 GA coach asked all the girls who the Aug-Dec born players are and said the plan is to move them down with the new 11-12 combo next season.

I was she surprised she said anything because that upset some of the other parents as the 4 girls eligible are all starters.

But from I gathered it had nothing to do with grade and only had to do with the new age formations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A recent thread on Reddit had someone saying their club is all staying BY to accommodate MLSN. Did not see that as a possibility.

Sons club director said the same thing as of now MLSN is staying BY for the boys however August through December players will be allowed to bioband down if they want to with less restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recent thread on Reddit had someone saying their club is all staying BY to accommodate MLSN. Did not see that as a possibility.

Sons club director said the same thing as of now MLSN is staying BY for the boys however August through December players will be allowed to bioband down if they want to with less restrictions.

This seems problematic to just allow blanket biobanding and keep BY. Going to have a lot of angry parents/kids with all that extra playing down. I would think they need some order in place rather than do both SY and BY and have a potential 17 month age range within their teams. We’ll see if this is just conjecture on the clubs part bc MLSN hasn’t given clear guidance or if they want to create all this chaos for clubs parents and kids

[Anonymous]

The other issue is 100% of feeder orgs are now SY. It doesn’t eliminate trapped players and puts MLSN at a huge disadvantage at any non mls tournament.

Let’s all skip u12!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recent thread on Reddit had someone saying their club is all staying BY to accommodate MLSN. Did not see that as a possibility.

Sons club director said the same thing as of now MLSN is staying BY for the boys however August through December players will be allowed to bioband down if they want to with less restrictions.

This seems problematic to just allow blanket biobanding and keep BY. Going to have a lot of angry parents/kids with all that extra playing down. I would think they need some order in place rather than do both SY and BY and have a potential 17 month age range within their teams. We’ll see if this is just conjecture on the clubs part bc MLSN hasn’t given clear guidance or if they want to create all this chaos for clubs parents and kids

Quite frankly a 17 month age difference is a possible safety issue too, especially for u13-u15.