ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 😂

That was me lol I’ll proof read next time.
No promises though. But yes I did indeed hear this to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think ECNL needs anyone’s help or approval at this point that’s short sided thinking. It’s the old what came first the chicken or the egg. ECNL needs to look at what’s best for the majority not just the 1% of the 1% making national teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

[Anonymous]

ECNL,GA, MLS do like to follow the guidelines set in place however I believe they can make rule changes that benefit their league without changing away from birth year. It seems like
A pipe dream to think they will make a giant change without US soccer on their side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

My point was they do not have to change against the national federation.
Bio banding is proof of what I’m saying and shows changes can be made without going full school year. ECNL can offer something like bio banding.

ECNL does not offer U18 because of the issue with trapped players needing a team which is two separate birth years
Together.

Also many European countries are birth year for national teams but have some type of hybrid model to help younger players develop.

[Anonymous]

The president of ECNL has said on the record that the US is not like other countries and they should look to change to something that makes sense for how we do things scholastically. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Does it really matter if they go back to school grade? Or if they keep birth year? Either way top kids will rise to the occasion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

What’s the difference between bio banding and letting each team use 3 players or so with younger birth months? Its just semantics at some point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

What’s the difference between bio banding and letting each team use 3 players or so with younger birth months? Its just semantics at some point.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with relative age effect and bio-banding before asking crazy questions in public.

Moving the cutoff date from December 31st to August 31st has nothing to do with maturation or late bloomers.
It's about the school calendar

You probably also need to research semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

What’s the difference between bio banding and letting each team use 3 players or so with younger birth months? Its just semantics at some point.

Wait, so you want to change the cutoff date for individual trapped players instead of the entire league?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

What’s the difference between bio banding and letting each team use 3 players or so with younger birth months? Its just semantics at some point.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with relative age effect and bio-banding before asking crazy questions in public.

Moving the cutoff date from December 31st to August 31st has nothing to do with maturation or late bloomers.
It's about the school calendar

You probably also need to research semantics.

Since your an expert in the topic. How are the bio banded kids determined? Is there an independent physician involved that does tests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

What’s the difference between bio banding and letting each team use 3 players or so with younger birth months? Its just semantics at some point.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you think ECNL needs anyone’s help or approval at this point that’s short sided thinking. It’s the old what came first the chicken or the egg. ECNL needs to look at what’s best for the majority not just the 1% of the 1% making national teams.

The kindest way I can put it is that you are being an idiot. Ecnl is not a sanctioning body. It is a league that is sanctioned by others. Follows others rules. And they could never play anyone at any other tournament if they did not follow the rules. Ecnl is a cog not the machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I guess we will find out over the next several months. If ECNL makes no change then they are tied up to these other organizations however if they do make any change at all that shows a lot as well.

I don’t see how mls next can add bio banding and ECNL is unable to add their own amendments as well.

At last check, bio-banding is an international process that has been in use for decades. Any league can use the process.

Changing your league cutoff date to go against your National Federation is not even remotely comparable.
Why are you even stating this obviously false equivalency?

My point was they do not have to change against the national federation.
Bio banding is proof of what I’m saying and shows changes can be made without going full school year. ECNL can offer something like bio banding.

ECNL does not offer U18 because of the issue with trapped players needing a team which is two separate birth years
Together.

Also many European countries are birth year for national teams but have some type of hybrid model to help younger players develop.

You just made up that hybrid model stuff.
Europe uses calendar. England uses school year.
They both play players up or down (biobanding) where appropriate for the development needs of individual players.

You are reaching for straws constantly trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The purpose of biobanding is not to fix a cutoff date problem, so it is not the solution for that.

[Anonymous]

i didn't know we have so many international soccer scholars on these boards