ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

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

No need to feel insecure, just open your mind to learning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So the ecnl president is saying our youth model sucks compared to real soccer culture countries so ecnl should just do any gimmicks they feel like to benefit there organization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but it's quite clear biobanding is about players that are behind their calendar year peers in maturation and physical development.

The method for a club/league determining that doesn't change the concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No need to feel insecure, just open your mind to learning

my mind is open and ready to hear what the experts have to say

[Anonymous]

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.

On the girls side, ECNL is the machine, and the machine sells getting your kid recruited into college. Thus, they are going to do what works best for maximizing the opportunities to get as many of their players recruited as possible. They attract by far the largest number of college coaches, and the most premier programs (Power 4, D1) to their showcases, and the feedback they are getting from those college coaches is that they want to view players in those environments by class/year of graduation. So ECNL is reacting to what the college coaches want.

And honestly, they don't really care if their teams could never play in any other tournament, as they are not looking to validate their teams against any other league. Nor do most of their teams even desire to play outside the ECNL ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but it's quite clear biobanding is about players that are behind their calendar year peers in maturation and physical development.

The method for a club/league determining that doesn't change the concept.

Theory and practice are 2 different things here.

Under the guise of biobanding, some clubs have the flexibility to play players down and even out teams, create super teams, fill in gaps when they don't have a team in an age group, etc.

Based on ECNL podcasts, ECNL teams want flexibility also. They are obviously focusing on kids born at the end of the year to gain similar flexibility as biobanding. But again, based on podcasts, biobanding metrics seemed lacking and can be abused so the were forcing on birth dates for flexibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but it's quite clear biobanding is about players that are behind their calendar year peers in maturation and physical development.

The method for a club/league determining that doesn't change the concept.

Theory and practice are 2 different things here.

Under the guise of biobanding, some clubs have the flexibility to play players down and even out teams, create super teams, fill in gaps when they don't have a team in an age group, etc.

Based on ECNL podcasts, ECNL teams want flexibility also. They are obviously focusing on kids born at the end of the year to gain similar flexibility as biobanding. But again, based on podcasts, biobanding metrics seemed lacking and can be abused so the were forcing on birth dates for flexibility.

You must be advertising this podcast 🤣

If the concept is being abused by some it doesn't change the concept.

There is No Lacking in Relative Age Effect data. The DOB's don't lie when rosters are reviewed in all the studies.
All top elite clubs have most players born in first two quarters.
If you don't like facts, this is not a discussion for you.

Biobanding isn't for team flexibility.
It is about individual development for kids with potential who are late bloomers physically.

If ecnl changes to school year, it makes September to December the 1st Quarter kids and gives them the maturity advantage.
What flexibility does that give?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but it's quite clear biobanding is about players that are behind their calendar year peers in maturation and physical development.

The method for a club/league determining that doesn't change the concept.

Theory and practice are 2 different things here.

Under the guise of biobanding, some clubs have the flexibility to play players down and even out teams, create super teams, fill in gaps when they don't have a team in an age group, etc.

Based on ECNL podcasts, ECNL teams want flexibility also. They are obviously focusing on kids born at the end of the year to gain similar flexibility as biobanding. But again, based on podcasts, biobanding metrics seemed lacking and can be abused so the were forcing on birth dates for flexibility.

You must be advertising this podcast 🤣

If the concept is being abused by some it doesn't change the concept.

There is No Lacking in Relative Age Effect data. The DOB's don't lie when rosters are reviewed in all the studies.
All top elite clubs have most players born in first two quarters.
If you don't like facts, this is not a discussion for you.

Biobanding isn't for team flexibility.
It is about individual development for kids with potential who are late bloomers physically.

If ecnl changes to school year, it makes September to December the 1st Quarter kids and gives them the maturity advantage.
What flexibility does that give?

This a discussion started from ECNL leadership stating beliefs and taking a position on 2 podcasts, it is not supposed to be a "late developers" triggering event. Again, what something is about and how it is used are 2 different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm not the PP, but it's quite clear biobanding is about players that are behind their calendar year peers in maturation and physical development.

The method for a club/league determining that doesn't change the concept.

Theory and practice are 2 different things here.

Under the guise of biobanding, some clubs have the flexibility to play players down and even out teams, create super teams, fill in gaps when they don't have a team in an age group, etc.

Based on ECNL podcasts, ECNL teams want flexibility also. They are obviously focusing on kids born at the end of the year to gain similar flexibility as biobanding. But again, based on podcasts, biobanding metrics seemed lacking and can be abused so the were forcing on birth dates for flexibility.

You must be advertising this podcast 🤣

If the concept is being abused by some it doesn't change the concept.

There is No Lacking in Relative Age Effect data. The DOB's don't lie when rosters are reviewed in all the studies.
All top elite clubs have most players born in first two quarters.
If you don't like facts, this is not a discussion for you.

Biobanding isn't for team flexibility.
It is about individual development for kids with potential who are late bloomers physically.

If ecnl changes to school year, it makes September to December the 1st Quarter kids and gives them the maturity advantage.
What flexibility does that give?

This a discussion started from ECNL leadership stating beliefs and taking a position on 2 podcasts, it is not supposed to be a "late developers" triggering event. Again, what something is about and how it is used are 2 different things.

I guess you're not the poster who introduced biobanding into the discussion and repeatedly keeps using biobanding in MLS Next as a reference for why ecnl should change to school year.

We all know changing the cutoff date has nothing to do with late developers.

[Anonymous]

We are back to this again!

One more time for the back of the crowd. Moving the dates is a fix for trapped players. Nothing else.

RE remains a problem, one they are NOT addressing with a potential change to August 1st/Sept 1st for year cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Why would ECNL take the time to talk about this if they planned to just keep everything the exact same? They also stated they had plans to change things for 25/26 season.

[Anonymous]

They said they are working with governing bodies to change thing for Fall 25 but nothing was a done deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They said they are working with governing bodies to change thing for Fall 25 but nothing was a done deal.

Where's the eye-rolling emoji

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They said they are working with governing bodies to change thing for Fall 25 but nothing was a done deal.

Who is "They" and where is this documented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They said they are working with governing bodies to change thing for Fall 25 but nothing was a done deal.

Where's the eye-rolling emoji

- must be new here

After all this discussion I wish there were more actual facts/statements/press releases, but the smoke is there.