ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As kid that will be directly impacted. I just wish they don't leave this hanging for 23 months as a nagging worry for teens and their families. If they want to grow the game, having this looming and in the background will only cause people to leave the sport vs. stick with.

While I agree they should make a decision and be done with it. The vast majorly of families with kids that play soccer have no knowledge that this is even being discussed.

That might have been true a few weeks or months ago, but the cat is out of the bag. It's being talked about everywhere now.

I have kept it quiet from my daughter (q4) and this past week at practice I was asked about it by the gossipy parent. The cat is definitely out of the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

TLDR

Playing down for wins is BS and cheating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

I’d agree the big difference is parents here are paying way too much money. If it was a free program most parents would maybe have a different out look on things. We are paying for development which most clubs do not have the ability to offer the level of development kids need.

Lots of roadblocks in the US that will always create issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

If your kid is not getting off the bench at all, you're on the wrong team. And you're looking for a scapegoat. That's either a coaching problem or your kid could benefit from moving down a level. No club should roster a kid and not play them at all. Isn't the bigger issue that a coach shouldn't be playing or sitting kids for entire games? Goes back to the loss of focus on what's important - development not W's. You're pissed about an older kid playing on your team now. How are you going to feel when he gets to college at 18 and a 26 year old who has played five years in European pro ball is on the same roster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

Would you be equally pissed if a younger player who was significantly bigger than your kid played up and took all your kid's minutes? Or does it just work one way, and we have to put kids in nice little birthday boxes no matter their physical maturity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

I’d agree the big difference is parents here are paying way too much money. If it was a free program most parents would maybe have a different out look on things. We are paying for development which most clubs do not have the ability to offer the level of development kids need.

Lots of roadblocks in the US that will always create issues.

Biobanding to play full time is cheating in the game, and it occurs at the expense of another player in his own age group. This is on top of the $5K MLS club fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

I’d agree the big difference is parents here are paying way too much money. If it was a free program most parents would maybe have a different out look on things. We are paying for development which most clubs do not have the ability to offer the level of development kids need.

Lots of roadblocks in the US that will always create issues.

Biobanding to play full time is cheating in the game, and it occurs at the expense of another player in his own age group. This is on top of the $5K MLS club fee.

Thinking you're a Bethesda 2010 parent. Yeah, what's happened there is criminal. Can't disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than likely clubs will have the option to delay based on what each league decides. That is all being worked out behind the scenes. But ECNL will start asap.

ECNL will start in 25/26, with a possible limited SY change in Spring 25.

Socal league will start in 26/27, but clubs have an option to switch SY in 25/26 while playing up.

No one will start with 25/26 -- not enough time.

[Anonymous]

If US Soccer would just make the announcement we all know is coming, then there would be plenty of time for clubs to prepare for February through May tryouts. California is on a shorter timeline, so it’s understandable how they may choose to wait to administer the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than likely clubs will have the option to delay based on what each league decides. That is all being worked out behind the scenes. But ECNL will start asap.

ECNL will start in 25/26, with a possible limited SY change in Spring 25.

Socal league will start in 26/27, but clubs have an option to switch SY in 25/26 while playing up.

No one will start with 25/26 -- not enough time.

Plenty of time. Tryouts are months away. This isn't a rocket science amount of changes that need to happen. They are just moving the birthday date cut off date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

Would you be equally pissed if a younger player who was significantly bigger than your kid played up and took all your kid's minutes? Or does it just work one way, and we have to put kids in nice little birthday boxes no matter their physical maturity?

The youth soccer team is based on age, not body shape. Your sissy boy finds a crack in the system, better to be quiet. I know, and you know, he has no hope of playing in his age group and has to play with 20-month-old players in order for you to boast. It is a shame, and all his younger teammates and their parents know it. We don't say it, but that does not mean we are fine with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More than likely clubs will have the option to delay based on what each league decides. That is all being worked out behind the scenes. But ECNL will start asap.

ECNL will start in 25/26, with a possible limited SY change in Spring 25.

Socal league will start in 26/27, but clubs have an option to switch SY in 25/26 while playing up.

No one will start with 25/26 -- not enough time.

Not enough time to what? Nobody has to do anything. Change nothing and nothing bad happens, you just miss a chance to move some fall birthdays down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

If your kid is not getting off the bench at all, you're on the wrong team. And you're looking for a scapegoat. That's either a coaching problem or your kid could benefit from moving down a level. No club should roster a kid and not play them at all. Isn't the bigger issue that a coach shouldn't be playing or sitting kids for entire games? Goes back to the loss of focus on what's important - development not W's. You're pissed about an older kid playing on your team now. How are you going to feel when he gets to college at 18 and a 26 year old who has played five years in European pro ball is on the same roster?

That is why I hate those half-wit liberals. You say something, and they throw in something totally unrelated to confuse you. We are talking about "Pay to Play" youth soccer, in which teams are based on age, and we all pay $5k. We are talking about whether it is fair for a biobanding player who plays down against 20 months younger players in their own age group and play full game time, so one player in his own age group has to sit out for this 20 months older player. We are not talking about college soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The demonization of bio-banding on this forum shows how out of touch with reality US soccer has become. The program was never designed to give teams an advantage. It was started in Europe to serve the purpose of what most of us agree is a huge problem - focusing on the development of players and not winning trophies at youth levels. Just as trees grow at different rates, so do kids. Anyone involved in youth soccer who is worth their salt will tell you that the smaller kids get pushed out at younger ages. Biobanding is SUPPOSED to provide skilled, smaller kids with an opportunity to be challenged at a high skill level while not being pushed out of their game because of their size. Unfortunately, in the US they implemented it in just one league with no guidelines. As can be totally expected, a few a'hole adults have abused the rule by bio-banding kids who do not fit the model - to get a competitive advantage. It would be very easy to work with a pediatric chart for the bottom five percent of growth tables and say...unless you are this height and weight and below, you're not eligible. Unfortunately, there are really no rules like this in place for MLS Next. There should be, and in my opinion other leagues should adopt bio=banding while capping it to a couple kids per team with the aforementioned size restrictions. And, again, because it has been misrepresented in other parts of DCUM, bio-banding has NOTHING to do with birth date in terms of 4th quarter, etc. Some kids are extremely late bloomers and some are early bloomers. It is completely possible for a 13 year old boy to be smaller than the average 11 year old. That kid could go on to be a great soccer player, and should be given the chance. The adults should be sensible about these things and play the bigger kids up when it makes sense and make exceptions for the skilled smaller kids as well. That's not cheating. It's good practice for developing players. But, I'm sure we'll all go back to figuring out how we're going to collect our U13 trophies, because that's what really matters, right?

I wish that biobanding player who is 20 months older than your kid, take over your kid's position and play full time. Let's see if you have a different thought after you sit on the bench along with your kid in his age group for the whole game.

If your kid is not getting off the bench at all, you're on the wrong team. And you're looking for a scapegoat. That's either a coaching problem or your kid could benefit from moving down a level. No club should roster a kid and not play them at all. Isn't the bigger issue that a coach shouldn't be playing or sitting kids for entire games? Goes back to the loss of focus on what's important - development not W's. You're pissed about an older kid playing on your team now. How are you going to feel when he gets to college at 18 and a 26 year old who has played five years in European pro ball is on the same roster?

That is why I hate those half-wit liberals. You say something, and they throw in something totally unrelated to confuse you. We are talking about "Pay to Play" youth soccer, in which teams are based on age, and we all pay $5k. We are talking about whether it is fair for a biobanding player who plays down against 20 months younger players in their own age group and play full game time, so one player in his own age group has to sit out for this 20 months older player. We are not talking about college soccer.

Your English needs work.