ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

After reading all of the forums, you seem to have the most accurate, up to date info yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify for people the age groups changing is a done deal as the governing bodies have already had their vote to change things up, the vote on the 22nd will decide what cut offs will be used 8/1 or 9/1.

This is what is still being worked on and they will present a various roll out plans for 8/1 and 9/1 and US soccer will approve one of them and that’s what it will be.

For example this will possibly start being phased in spring 25 with teams allowed X amount of players to join the team rules will be in place to limit the chaos. With this fully being implemented by Fall 26 for ALL clubs and leagues under the US soccer umbrella.

Another phase plan is no change for spring 25 but a full on start for all teams in Fall 25 however clubs will have the option to play up if they do not want to rip teams apart and start from scratch.

ECNL is waiting for this all to be approved and they have a master plan they will start and announce by January. Im told they will have slightly different age groupings but won’t be drastically different from the plan approved.

Which even they are not sure which it will be 8/1 or 9/1.

As I said before, mls will be forced to change as well. No their biobanding player can play 2 years down. What a shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

We will find out soon enough. Will take a good 2-3 years to get the data on this.
But good players will transcend birth months. I would be highly surprised if we didn’t see the kids who were just bigger not necessarily more or less skilled lose their spots as they lose the size advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

We will find out soon enough. Will take a good 2-3 years to get the data on this.
But good players will transcend birth months. I would be highly surprised if we didn’t see the kids who were just bigger not necessarily more or less skilled lose their spots as they lose the size advantage.

2010 Dec. kid, struggle in top ECNL and MLSN team. Has a 2011 classmate in middle school, who attended YNT ID camp. My son told me he can beat 2011 kid easily at school soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December. About 6 months of growth and maturity is better than some shiny shoe of course.

This isn't just some January vs December kid thing. January goes from front of line to middle of line, not the back. And December goes from back of line to middle of the line not the front.

Sure, might take say 2 years for the age change to show impact at the oldest age group so Jan 2009 kid essentially dodged this as they could be in the oldest age group when implemented.

[Anonymous]

So would ECNL allow shuffling of players within a club as early as this spring? Rather than have the trapped player system in effect for the spring?

Also, I really hope that ECNL clubs don’t just look at their ECNL players but also their ECNL RL players. Some of them may be in RL just because of the RAE but more competitive at the NL level essentially playing “down” from what age group they’re currently at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scouts will still only care about the same things.

How old is he/she?
When do they graduate?
What's their current performance and future potential?

SY means nothing.
Scouts aren't comparing players against their classmates.

Maybe not, but college scouts with limited resources are not going to go to tournaments, or watch games, until those teams are in their peak recruiting years. So if you have a kid who is a junior, but playing on a team with a bunch of sophomores, and the sophomore year is when scouts are really paying attention, then that junior will have essentially missed out on one year of recruiting because they would’ve been the only sophomore on a team full of freshman. College scouts are not going to watch a bunch of freshman games, even if there are one or two sophomores on those teams.

I hear that kids who are serious about getting recruited get on the front foot and reach out to the colleges, coaches they wish to attend.

They aren't just going to tournaments with hundreds of other players and hope for the slim odds they will be discovered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scouts will still only care about the same things.

How old is he/she?
When do they graduate?
What's their current performance and future potential?

SY means nothing.
Scouts aren't comparing players against their classmates.

Maybe not, but college scouts with limited resources are not going to go to tournaments, or watch games, until those teams are in their peak recruiting years. So if you have a kid who is a junior, but playing on a team with a bunch of sophomores, and the sophomore year is when scouts are really paying attention, then that junior will have essentially missed out on one year of recruiting because they would’ve been the only sophomore on a team full of freshman. College scouts are not going to watch a bunch of freshman games, even if there are one or two sophomores on those teams.

I hear that kids who are serious about getting recruited get on the front foot and reach out to the colleges, coaches they wish to attend.

They aren't just going to tournaments with hundreds of other players and hope for the slim odds they will be discovered.

This is correct. They should start creating relationships and networking with these coaches and colleges at least in their sophomore years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to clarify for people the age groups changing is a done deal as the governing bodies have already had their vote to change things up, the vote on the 22nd will decide what cut offs will be used 8/1 or 9/1.

This is what is still being worked on and they will present a various roll out plans for 8/1 and 9/1 and US soccer will approve one of them and that’s what it will be.

For example this will possibly start being phased in spring 25 with teams allowed X amount of players to join the team rules will be in place to limit the chaos. With this fully being implemented by Fall 26 for ALL clubs and leagues under the US soccer umbrella.

Another phase plan is no change for spring 25 but a full on start for all teams in Fall 25 however clubs will have the option to play up if they do not want to rip teams apart and start from scratch.

ECNL is waiting for this all to be approved and they have a master plan they will start and announce by January. Im told they will have slightly different age groupings but won’t be drastically different from the plan approved.

Which even they are not sure which it will be 8/1 or 9/1.

As I said before, mls will be forced to change as well. No their biobanding player can play 2 years down. What a shame.

Missed the part where you explain in detail why the top league will change to match the lower league 🤔

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December. About 6 months of growth and maturity is better than some shiny shoe of course.

This isn't just some January vs December kid thing. January goes from front of line to middle of line, not the back. And December goes from back of line to middle of the line not the front.

Sure, might take say 2 years for the age change to show impact at the oldest age group so Jan 2009 kid essentially dodged this as they could be in the oldest age group when implemented.

New rule.
Actually read and understand research on Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding before talking about it randomly and incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Speaking mostly on the girls side (since I have a daughter), I like her playing with the older, bigger kids at the younger age since it forces her to use skill and technique. I’ve noticed first hand one of our girls dominate last season since she was the biggest and fastest, and would just kick the ball 20 feet in front of her and run. Fast forward this year, other girls hit their growth spurt and have caught up. The girl that dominated last year had no skills move and now is struggling. They basically form bad habits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December. About 6 months of growth and maturity is better than some shiny shoe of course.

This isn't just some January vs December kid thing. January goes from front of line to middle of line, not the back. And December goes from back of line to middle of the line not the front.

Sure, might take say 2 years for the age change to show impact at the oldest age group so Jan 2009 kid essentially dodged this as they could be in the oldest age group when implemented.

New rule.
Actually read and understand research on Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding before talking about it randomly and incorrectly.

Please illustrated where biobanding is mentioned and relative age effect is used incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

We will find out soon enough. Will take a good 2-3 years to get the data on this.
But good players will transcend birth months. I would be highly surprised if we didn’t see the kids who were just bigger not necessarily more or less skilled lose their spots as they lose the size advantage.

2010 Dec. kid, struggle in top ECNL and MLSN team. Has a 2011 classmate in middle school, who attended YNT ID camp. My son told me he can beat 2011 kid easily at school soccer.

😆 how does he beat him? with a bat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if discussed on the previous 239 pages but what if an October Q4 kid and a March Q1 kid are in the same grade? Does the Q4 kid have the option of playing a grade/year lower?

As the old saying goes, the Devil is in the details. What I can figure is we won't know until a clear policy is written to discuss these details.
1.) We don't know for sure this will be voted on an approved. (But yes, most rumors indicate this will occur.)
2.) The policy would have to specify what the grouping is based on exactly:
---a.) Will it be the actual grade year (i.e. Graduation Year) the kid is in or...
---b.) Will it be birth dates that generally align with the school year (i.e. 1 August to 31 July)

In scenario a.) All kids in the game grade (regardless of actual birthday or birth year) are grouped together on a team.
In scenario b.) All kids born in specific date range 1 August year 2024 to 31 July 2025 (for example) will be on a team.

In either scenario, there are problems. We are trading a current set of problems for a new set of problems, this is why some people are wondering if the current birth year grouping will actually be changed with widespread approval. We shall see.

Will the kid have an option of playing a grade/ year lower? A guess by the uninformed is almost as good a guess by the most informed. That is to say who knows what waivers and exceptions they will allow for, if any at all. Generally speaking, kids are not allowed to play down (except in MLS next with Bio-Banding), they are only allowed to play up if good enough.

9 days left!

And then We find out who’s Jan-March kids are good at soccer or just benefited from RAE. The truth is coming for many people very soon.

Does RAE try out for teams? Is it a shoe that makes them better, but now they cant wear it anymore?

This is so dumb.

If kids are good they are good. RAE benefits aren’t taken away from Jan 2009 baby and then given to October 2009 baby…the benefits are baked in already.

Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December. About 6 months of growth and maturity is better than some shiny shoe of course.

This isn't just some January vs December kid thing. January goes from front of line to middle of line, not the back. And December goes from back of line to middle of the line not the front.

Sure, might take say 2 years for the age change to show impact at the oldest age group so Jan 2009 kid essentially dodged this as they could be in the oldest age group when implemented.

New rule.
Actually read and understand research on Relative Age Effect and Bio-banding before talking about it randomly and incorrectly.

Please illustrated where biobanding is mentioned and relative age effect is used incorrectly.

All over this thread