ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think their English sounds fine.

I also think you are a smug loser.

[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.

That's on you for seeing some political bend that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

This vote can't come soon enough!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This vote can't come soon enough!

It would be fun if US Soccer did something people aren't expecting. Watching the know it allls lose their minds would be cheap entertainment.

[Anonymous]

when is the vote happening? i thought it was suppose to happen beginning of November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when is the vote happening? i thought it was suppose to happen beginning of November.

Nov. 22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This vote can't come soon enough!

It would be fun if US Soccer did something people aren't expecting. Watching the know it allls lose their minds would be cheap entertainment.

this will not be a mandate like last time. US soccer will approve the change and kick the decision back to the governing bodies and states to decide when they want to start and what cutoffs work for each state.

They want as little disruption as possible and are working on a roll out plan. More than likely some states and leagues will start sooner than others. Some will start Fall 25 or 26. Some might not have to change at all if they don’t want to.

ECNL will be doing this right away that’s all I know for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This vote can't come soon enough!

It would be fun if US Soccer did something people aren't expecting. Watching the know it allls lose their minds would be cheap entertainment.

this will not be a mandate like last time. US soccer will approve the change and kick the decision back to the governing bodies and states to decide when they want to start and what cutoffs work for each state.

They want as little disruption as possible and are working on a roll out plan. More than likely some states and leagues will start sooner than others. Some will start Fall 25 or 26. Some might not have to change at all if they don’t want to.

ECNL will be doing this right away that’s all I know for sure.

Is this what you think, or do you have some solid info on the topic?

[Anonymous]

The USYS, US Club, and AYSO statement emphasized them acting together and those groups constitute most leagues.

[Anonymous]

If ECNL does it right away, does that apply only to the national level ECNL teams or also ECNL regional and pre ECNL/ECRL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The USYS, US Club, and AYSO statement emphasized them acting together and those groups constitute most leagues.

According to Skip Gilbert, "Once passed, we'll work to ensure a smooth transition with toolkits and other resources to ensure all kids want to stay in the sport and take their game as far as they can."

Not sure what the "toolkits" are or if they are for leagues, clubs and/or parents/players but would imagine someone is putting together that info as we speak.

[Anonymous]

So is it a birth month or School grade? Or a combination of both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USYS, US Club, and AYSO statement emphasized them acting together and those groups constitute most leagues.

According to Skip Gilbert, "Once passed, we'll work to ensure a smooth transition with toolkits and other resources to ensure all kids want to stay in the sport and take their game as far as they can."

Not sure what the "toolkits" are or if they are for leagues, clubs and/or parents/players but would imagine someone is putting together that info as we speak.

That’s definitely what’s going on behind the scenes everyone is making their plans. But outside of ECNL I have not heard anyone has solidified their plans yet. Which is why I think we will see Fall 26 for the vast majority of teams and this potentially being done is phases between Jan 1 2025 and Fall 2026.

The big governing bodies involved do not want mass distribution or want to look at all avenues to make as little disruption as possible.

My prediction is ECNL and possibly the other academy leagues will start asap or keep things the same. The leagues like ECNL-RL/NPL down to Rec will start fully by Fall 26.

Potentially leagues will allow 3-4 Aug to Dec kids to play down for tournaments or state cup or other things like that.

But sounds like most clubs will have to play up next fall if they want to jump right into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is it a birth month or School grade? Or a combination of both?

I think we will see each league by state doing something different. The change will be to School year cut offs but will vary by each state for the lower level leagues.
ECNL and ECRL will be based off similar cutoffs from what I was told. With ECNL starting up to a year early potentially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The USYS, US Club, and AYSO statement emphasized them acting together and those groups constitute most leagues.

According to Skip Gilbert, "Once passed, we'll work to ensure a smooth transition with toolkits and other resources to ensure all kids want to stay in the sport and take their game as far as they can."

Not sure what the "toolkits" are or if they are for leagues, clubs and/or parents/players but would imagine someone is putting together that info as we speak.

That’s definitely what’s going on behind the scenes everyone is making their plans. But outside of ECNL I have not heard anyone has solidified their plans yet. Which is why I think we will see Fall 26 for the vast majority of teams and this potentially being done is phases between Jan 1 2025 and Fall 2026.

The big governing bodies involved do not want mass distribution or want to look at all avenues to make as little disruption as possible.

My prediction is ECNL and possibly the other academy leagues will start asap or keep things the same. The leagues like ECNL-RL/NPL down to Rec will start fully by Fall 26.

Potentially leagues will allow 3-4 Aug to Dec kids to play down for tournaments or state cup or other things like that.

But sounds like most clubs will have to play up next fall if they want to jump right into it.

If any change, all will adapt by Fall 2025. It's too much of a logistic nightmare for ECNL or anyone else to destabilize current teams by making those switches January 2025. They have nothing to gain for it but unhappy customers. It'll all take place with ID events and tryouts.