ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

So is this happening or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

They likely start getting more opportunities on better teams, more attention from their coaches, and become more confident, but they may now be the ones who over-rely on size and speed while the Summer birthdays have no choice but to work harder on their technical skills. Some Sep-Dec kids will work harder because they now think "soccer is my thing, and I'm great at it," but many of them will get lazy and over-confident that they're always going to be better than other players even after everyone is fully-grown.

Better teams in ECNL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

Don’t forget about the August kids!

Interesting that your point of view is the reason Aug to December kids are underrepresented is because of their lack of work ethic? If that’s the case you should embrace all those kids joining the group. With The lack of effort they give shouldn’t be a problem.

ECNL changing to SY makes a Oct to Dec kid still a 4th Quarter kid in MLS Next and USYS
So if that kid isn’t already putting in work to overcome any possible late bloomer physical disadvantages, the change in ECNL is only superficial and cosmetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is this happening or not?

No not anytime soon. It is under study. Best case is 25-26 but more likely 26-27 if they do it. They are not likely to do it after the review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

I think you just proved the whole point of changing back to SY? The current system is failing too large of a group of kids. We want more kids playing not just one group as the majority.

Also I’m pretty sure countries in Europe with strong school systems play SY and offer bio banding to younger players in BY which helps development as well.

Can you list the countries in Europe who's youth soccer federations use SY (other than England)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

I think you just proved the whole point of changing back to SY? The current system is failing too large of a group of kids. We want more kids playing not just one group as the majority.

Also I’m pretty sure countries in Europe with strong school systems play SY and offer bio banding to younger players in BY which helps development as well.

Can you list the countries in Europe who's youth soccer federations use SY (other than England)

Yeah, all of them except Germany (summer cutoff). School cutoffs around Europe are generally Jan 1, aligning with soccer groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does ECNL changing from BY to SY makes all the kids born September to December suddenly start training harder, better and more consistently to elevated all elements of their game?

They likely start getting more opportunities on better teams, more attention from their coaches, and become more confident, but they may now be the ones who over-rely on size and speed while the Summer birthdays have no choice but to work harder on their technical skills. Some Sep-Dec kids will work harder because they now think "soccer is my thing, and I'm great at it," but many of them will get lazy and over-confident that they're always going to be better than other players even after everyone is fully-grown.

Better teams in ECNL?

Maybe. But more likely better teams across the entire landscape of leagues below ECNL, and in some cases from below ECNL(NL) onto NL for the first time.

I think it's highly unlikely that ECNL does this by themselves, and has a different cutoff than other leagues. But isn't every parent on here annoyed by the amount of interstate travel teams do who aren't even at the absolute tippy-top of the elite-ness pyramid? I get it for ECNL/NL and MLS Next, but everyone else? A common proposal to combat RAE is to group teams in smaller age bands while at the youngest levels. But the retort is "we don't have enough players to fill the teams." Maybe we do, if they weren't fractured among so many BS leagues, traveling out of state to play another club's B team. US Soccer should be looking for a way to force leagues to consolidate and then maybe we could have double the age groups until high school. Or, if ECNL did do it differently than other leagues, maybe the consumers would benefit by being able to choose the league with the cutoff which benefits their child most. The leagues won't want to be different than each other, but maybe parents should be hoping that they are, so we have a real choice of which one best fits our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well let's get on with it then.

It will be a very good change, remove the stupid trapped player issue for 25% of players in the country, and help the college coaches who could care less about what year a kid was born and only care about what year a kid graduates.

Many kids playing high level soccer want to play soccer in college. Current system is a deterent for that for reasons that are fixable.

Almost ironic that it took a decision maker's own personal situation with his kid to recognize the mess created 9 years ago--but suppose better late than never.

No downside for kids born 1/1-9/1 other than they now need to compete with their classmates, who they will graduate with. And only upside for those who have been screwed out of 2 soccer seasons of their career (8th/12th).

There absolutely is a downside for kids 1/1 to 9/1, as it shifts the RAE window. Just as the existing birth year has a downside for 9/1-12/31 kids because of RAE.

What moving to school year does is allows for trapped kids (orphaned from their teams) in 8th grade and 12th grade to “play with their classmates.”

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

No matter where you draw the line RAE will be present. But it makes more sense to keep kids together with classmates. Also this change if it does happen would not affect national teams as that would still be based on birth year. If anything going by grade year allows for more development for all kids rather than just the first half of the year.

Aug to Dec would get more comp soccer opportunities but Jan to July kids still have the age advantage for ODP and national teams.

The RAE is variable with whatever line you draw is just a waiving of hands “nothing to see here.” It’s really not that simple.

Regardless, the argument was “there is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids.” I pointed out the downside, and you agreed with it and then said “it will be all good because they still have an age advantage for ODP and National Teams.” There is clearly a downside.

It doesn’t affect either of my kids much but it’s blows my mind how much trapped parents think this this change will magically make up the hours, days, months, years of hard training every other kids does to not be “trapped.”

My kid is set on their team as an October kid but stupid posts like yours make me actually want the change. You Jan to May families have no idea what’s coming for the majority of you if this change happens. News flash of your kid isn’t a starter you’re gone. The Q3 and Q4 ECNL kids will take those spots from most starters and non starters like nothing.

“There is no downside to 1/1 to 9/1 kids” 😂 ^^^

You also clearly don’t know how few trapped kids there actually are. It isn’t a world changing change. No soccer talent powerhouse nation does “school year” cutoffs. The US did it for a long time, if anything, people who want to see the US continue growing their international soccer prowess should have some serious pause.

I think you just proved the whole point of changing back to SY? The current system is failing too large of a group of kids. We want more kids playing not just one group as the majority.

Also I’m pretty sure countries in Europe with strong school systems play SY and offer bio banding to younger players in BY which helps development as well.

Can you list the countries in Europe who's youth soccer federations use SY (other than England)

Sweden,Norway, whales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark,allow biobanding for all kids who are born later in the year I don’t think they go BY only until U17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is this happening or not?

No not anytime soon. It is under study. Best case is 25-26 but more likely 26-27 if they do it. They are not likely to do it after the review.

My inside scoop said the same thing 50/50 for 25/26 but if announced ECNL will start a concept similar to biobanding for later players to get a jump start on the process.

[Anonymous]

Can we go back to the post about lacrosse…
After reading about it, it seems interesting enough to consider exploring…

“They allow organizations to either use the 12-month window most aligned with school classes, or use a 15-month window to flex summer birthdays to stay with their school class:
https://www.usalacrosse.c...guidelines”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we go back to the post about lacrosse…
After reading about it, it seems interesting enough to consider exploring…

“They allow organizations to either use the 12-month window most aligned with school classes, or use a 15-month window to flex summer birthdays to stay with their school class:
https://www.usalacrosse.c...guidelines”

I'm pretty sure this is what ECNL is looking into. If US soccer makes the change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

Does birth year, school year even matter to the players at this level? I'm always told these players are playing 2 or 3 years up anyway and never play with kids their age because they're so much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

Does birth year, school year even matter to the players at this level? I'm always told these players are playing 2 or 3 years up anyway and never play with kids their age because they're so much better.

It matters at the younger age groups trying to keep the participation up. Almost no one is playing 2 or 3 years up at the ECNL level and as stated earlier, it's more to help the trapped players/recruiting vs. RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

Does birth year, school year even matter to the players at this level? I'm always told these players are playing 2 or 3 years up anyway and never play with kids their age because they're so much better.

Maybe 1-5% kids can play 2 years up and be a game changer.
Maybe U17 it matters less but U16 and below kids are still developing physical too much for it not to matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It also misaligns the ECNL teams with pretty much all leagues and sanctioned bodies outside of ECNL, including national teams and international play.

Does birth year, school year even matter to the players at this level? I'm always told these players are playing 2 or 3 years up anyway and never play with kids their age because they're so much better.

What level are you referring to for ECNL?