ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep talking about kids playing "down" nobody is going to play down. It puts the teams in more of what they are currently in school.

Most teams right now (take 2010) ... 60/70 percent of the team are Freshman. 40/30 percent of the team is in 8th grade. This team is considered u15 or called 2010 (depending on the league)

If they make the change ... 95+ of the teams will be in the same grade. Nobody will be playing "down" - or less than a few percentages.

The players that are August/Sept birthdays or frankly anyone from August-July could go and try and play up with the older group, but nobody can just go "play down".

I truly don't understand why everyone keeps talking about kids playing down - especially in club soccer. They change will put 95%+ of all kids from the same grade on the same team.

Currently it is not close to that.

Most important - from my few - is it eliminates trapped 8th graders that don't get a club team when their teams are in 9th grade.

Current rules are BY

If things change to SY trapped players can play down an age group.

Pretty easy to understand by everyone but you because you're trying to use semantics because you're so stuck on SY.

Isn't everyone going to play in their SY age group, just not their former BY age group?

My kid is a G2010 trapped player and she doesn't want to play down with 2011s. She'd rather play up with 2009s at our club. Go figure.

If can double hop to the 09's she should! But, realistically, she can probably (club dependent perhaps) stick with the 10's and play one level up from where the new system would place her.

Most leagues won't allow you to play two games for two different age groups. Also, the point of a trapped player is to have playing time; therefore, playing with the 09s won't happen since they aren't playing or training.

Umm my trapped 2010 plays with the 2009s every couple of months.

Playing time is not an issue.

Sounds like your kid is a stud. Clubs do whatever it takes to keep stud players. I don't see an issue for you - just make whatever demands you want to your club. Unless you're delusional, the club will honor those demands.

[Anonymous]

Playing up won't be an issue in regards to the rules. Their ability to play up is going to based on club policy and every club is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep talking about kids playing "down" nobody is going to play down. It puts the teams in more of what they are currently in school.

Most teams right now (take 2010) ... 60/70 percent of the team are Freshman. 40/30 percent of the team is in 8th grade. This team is considered u15 or called 2010 (depending on the league)

If they make the change ... 95+ of the teams will be in the same grade. Nobody will be playing "down" - or less than a few percentages.

The players that are August/Sept birthdays or frankly anyone from August-July could go and try and play up with the older group, but nobody can just go "play down".

I truly don't understand why everyone keeps talking about kids playing down - especially in club soccer. They change will put 95%+ of all kids from the same grade on the same team.

Currently it is not close to that.

Most important - from my few - is it eliminates trapped 8th graders that don't get a club team when their teams are in 9th grade.

Current rules are BY

If things change to SY trapped players can play down an age group.

Pretty easy to understand by everyone but you because you're trying to use semantics because you're so stuck on SY.

Isn't everyone going to play in their SY age group, just not their former BY age group?

My kid is a G2010 trapped player and she doesn't want to play down with 2011s. She'd rather play up with 2009s at our club. Go figure.

If can double hop to the 09's she should! But, realistically, she can probably (club dependent perhaps) stick with the 10's and play one level up from where the new system would place her.

Most leagues won't allow you to play two games for two different age groups. Also, the point of a trapped player is to have playing time; therefore, playing with the 09s won't happen since they aren't playing or training.

Umm my trapped 2010 plays with the 2009s every couple of months.

Playing time is not an issue.

Sounds like your kid is a stud. Clubs do whatever it takes to keep stud players. I don't see an issue for you - just make whatever demands you want to your club. Unless you're delusional, the club will honor those demands.

Stud or not I don't really care. I just support her in the decisions she wants to make.

Everyone is worried about playing down when they should be looking for ways to play up. Trapped players are going to have a serious advantage soon if they stay with their current team and "guest" by playing down with the age group below.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, can't read all 246 pages but am I wrong that the consensus seems to be girls are going SY and boys are staying BY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, can't read all 246 pages but am I wrong that the consensus seems to be girls are going SY and boys are staying BY?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, can't read all 246 pages but am I wrong that the consensus seems to be girls are going SY and boys are staying BY?

If you believe the astroturf campaign.

MLSN hasn't made a statement on BY or SY
ECNL wants SY

MLSN doesn't need to change anything unlike the other leagues that need to change as a group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So which kids now have the advantage? Which months are we talking about?

Previously using calendar which birth years had the advantage?

"Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December."

So now Jan-June has a sliding scale of age advantage and July-August has a sliding scale of disadvantage.

But the theory is with SY is players can play with kids in their grade at school that it will somehow make RAE go away?

Does not compute.

The theory is not that RAE goes away completely under SY or BY. One of the theories of the switch to BY was that it would combat RAE because it would be easier to see via the simplicity of "month X is later in the year than month Y." Once noticed, coaches were assumed to be able to take it into account for team placements and development tracks. The problem is that our youth system prioritizes winning too much from an early age, so coaches just don't care about mitigating RAE. What clearly wasn't anticipated by US Soccer, but was by many others, was that RAE would also get worse under BY due to choices by players in light of new social dynamics. By compounding the disadvantage of being the youngest with trapped player issues and playing above their social tier (especially at elementary school ages), more late birthdays quit early or never transitioned to club soccer. These late birthdays, and potential late bloomers, lost a reason (social relationships) which might have motivated them to have some resiliency while their growth caught up.

Under neither system does RAE go away, but it can get worse or better. While some may have honestly thought BY would make it better, it actually got worse. And now, many now think SY is actually the system which makes RAE better.

This is 100% accurate. USA Soccer has data that Sept-Dec birthday kids quit soccer under the new system at much higher rates than May-Aug birthday quit under the old system. This is bad for $$ *and* for the quality of soccer. It is really a no brainer. No one should be surprised that "I want to play with my school friends" matters when 5-10 year old kids are picking the sports they want to play.

The "data" you're referring to is questionable at best.

RAE is the same in both BY and SY.

RAE being the same in CY and SY and participation rates going down in CY is not in conflict.

Participation was going down in 2017 before switching to BY

Still would be higher under SY than CY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, can't read all 246 pages but am I wrong that the consensus seems to be girls are going SY and boys are staying BY?

If you believe the astroturf campaign.

MLSN hasn't made a statement on BY or SY
ECNL wants SY

MLSN doesn't need to change anything unlike the other leagues that need to change as a group.

MLSN has EA. If EA stays in BY, it will lose many players.

There is no apparent financial advantage to staying in BY alone, so MLSN will be forced to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, can't read all 246 pages but am I wrong that the consensus seems to be girls are going SY and boys are staying BY?

If you believe the astroturf campaign.

MLSN hasn't made a statement on BY or SY
ECNL wants SY

MLSN doesn't need to change anything unlike the other leagues that need to change as a group.

MLSN has EA. If EA stays in BY, it will lose many players.

There is no apparent financial advantage to staying in BY alone, so MLSN will be forced to change.

MLS Next isn't forced to do anything. They literally don't care what other leagues are doing. Boys will continue to choose MLSN over ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So which kids now have the advantage? Which months are we talking about?

Previously using calendar which birth years had the advantage?

"Depending on the date, RAE will be reduced for kids born from Jan-July and increased for those from August-December."

So now Jan-June has a sliding scale of age advantage and July-August has a sliding scale of disadvantage.

But the theory is with SY is players can play with kids in their grade at school that it will somehow make RAE go away?

Does not compute.

The theory is not that RAE goes away completely under SY or BY. One of the theories of the switch to BY was that it would combat RAE because it would be easier to see via the simplicity of "month X is later in the year than month Y." Once noticed, coaches were assumed to be able to take it into account for team placements and development tracks. The problem is that our youth system prioritizes winning too much from an early age, so coaches just don't care about mitigating RAE. What clearly wasn't anticipated by US Soccer, but was by many others, was that RAE would also get worse under BY due to choices by players in light of new social dynamics. By compounding the disadvantage of being the youngest with trapped player issues and playing above their social tier (especially at elementary school ages), more late birthdays quit early or never transitioned to club soccer. These late birthdays, and potential late bloomers, lost a reason (social relationships) which might have motivated them to have some resiliency while their growth caught up.

Under neither system does RAE go away, but it can get worse or better. While some may have honestly thought BY would make it better, it actually got worse. And now, many now think SY is actually the system which makes RAE better.

This is 100% accurate. USA Soccer has data that Sept-Dec birthday kids quit soccer under the new system at much higher rates than May-Aug birthday quit under the old system. This is bad for $$ *and* for the quality of soccer. It is really a no brainer. No one should be surprised that "I want to play with my school friends" matters when 5-10 year old kids are picking the sports they want to play.

The "data" you're referring to is questionable at best.

RAE is the same in both BY and SY.

RAE being the same in CY and SY and participation rates going down in CY is not in conflict.

Participation was going down in 2017 before switching to BY

Still would be higher under SY than CY.

Yep. Trends can be accelerated by a new development without changing direction.

[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.

Not sure clubs will have much of a choice about this. To maintain a team, they would likely have to do that across all ages. Those teams would then be playing against clubs that made the adjustment and likely got stronger at each age group.

For example, Club Alpha has quality teams across all age groups, parents and kids are generally happy with current rosters and the club maintains status quo. Club Bravo, adjusts per the new suggested guidelines, having Q4s in current system move down (i.e. kids born SEP-DEC 11 now take roster spots on the current 12's). Club Bravo likely strengthened their roster relative to Club Alpha.

Clubs will adjust and adapt. Or lose more. This is the way.

[Anonymous]

Playing wihtout the new Q1 & Q2 is competitive suicide.

[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.

Not sure clubs will have much of a choice about this. To maintain a team, they would likely have to do that across all ages. Those teams would then be playing against clubs that made the adjustment and likely got stronger at each age group.

For example, Club Alpha has quality teams across all age groups, parents and kids are generally happy with current rosters and the club maintains status quo. Club Bravo, adjusts per the new suggested guidelines, having Q4s in current system move down (i.e. kids born SEP-DEC 11 now take roster spots on the current 12's). Club Bravo likely strengthened their roster relative to Club Alpha.

Clubs will adjust and adapt. Or lose more. This is the way.

So many people are concerned about the social impact of disrupting their teams, yet maintain that playing with classmates isn't important because only unserious players care about maximizing their social experience. Either the social side of soccer is more important than they're saying, or their real fear is losing their status on their team, instead of the irreplacable camaraderie. Lots of Jan-Jul parents saying, "grandfather our team in, my kid loves having those sweet trapped players on his/her team's bench, they're buddies!" The Aug-Dec parents are saying, "it's been fun, but peace out."

[Anonymous]

1000% this. I see my kids teammates parents online being like "don't bust up the team!" except there's only one kid on the team that will even be impacted and he's a top player so will likely stay.

What they are actually worried about is the fall birthday kids from the age group up bumping their kid down, but thats the thing no one will say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure clubs will have much of a choice about this. To maintain a team, they would likely have to do that across all ages. Those teams would then be playing against clubs that made the adjustment and likely got stronger at each age group.

For example, Club Alpha has quality teams across all age groups, parents and kids are generally happy with current rosters and the club maintains status quo. Club Bravo, adjusts per the new suggested guidelines, having Q4s in current system move down (i.e. kids born SEP-DEC 11 now take roster spots on the current 12's). Club Bravo likely strengthened their roster relative to Club Alpha.

Clubs will adjust and adapt. Or lose more. This is the way.

So many people are concerned about the social impact of disrupting their teams, yet maintain that playing with classmates isn't important because only unserious players care about maximizing their social experience. Either the social side of soccer is more important than they're saying, or their real fear is losing their status on their team, instead of the irreplacable camaraderie. Lots of Jan-Jul parents saying, "grandfather our team in, my kid loves having those sweet trapped players on his/her team's bench, they're buddies!" The Aug-Dec parents are saying, "it's been fun, but peace out."

The big point you are missing are the youngest age groups where the younger kids are displaced from the start and participation rates decline right off the bat splitting up different grades. The issue most important to people chatting on an anonymous soccer board is mostly trapped players (or just arguing for whatever is best for their kid).