ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Citysc doc is real. Thats not being questioned, just that may be outdated. The Albion and MLSN screenshots are also very likely real

The CityCS pdf Metadata says that it was created on 10/16. I confirmed myself.

Metadata created dates are not reliable for a number of reasons. Why do have such a hardon for this doc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks! I’m sure the crazies are saying this is fake, but what are the majority/realistic people saying?

Much like the Arlington FAQ the Albion update was provided by a club to update and inform parents.

This is different that a screenshot posted to reddit with no real details and names painted out with what looked like the same brush as other proven fakes from 6 months ago. Next time try harder.

That ‘brush’ is literally a standard image editing tool on an iPhone. There is nothing about it that is fake. If you had even an ounce of inside info you would know that the screenshot was legit. I can’t speak to those earlier ones (never even saw them).

There were 2 documents/screenshots that were proven to be fake and looked exactly like this one. The chances are pretty good that this one was faked as well.

Kind of interesting that everyone else has moved on accepting that it was faked but you.

Ok. You’ll be proven wrong again. Your track record is that you’ve been wrong on every single decision. Maybe sit this one out?

You've been proven to fake documents and screenshots 2x.

Sorry partially right guesses dont count.

I haven’t faked or created anything. Just commenting here like anyone else who has seen them floating around.

That being said, a ‘right guess’ is still better than always being wrong… Again, you may want to be introspective and figure out why you keep being on the wrong side of reality.

You lied + got caught + werent right. Then happened to get partially lucky with your guess.

Obviously you dont understand that lieing is wrong even if your lie happens to turn out partially correct. Something about ethics that you dont get.

The best part is I am the poster of ECNL grad year comment and have been busy and what a delight come back and see you blaming it on somone else and allow it to fry your brain just like I knew it would lol

I’m not making up anything by the way that was really told to me by my clubs ECNL director when I asked about my son who’s a July born player but started school late and his response was ECNL will have rules in place but his understanding is senior year would basically be what we are all referring to as grad year (with rules he believes as long as you are under 19 as of 8/1 you will be able to play).

This will also effect juniors for showcases as well where if you’re a junior (age rules of some type apply) you will be able to play U17 showcases but may have to play U19 for league play.

All this will come out eventually I’m just spreading the good word…

It sounds like youre the only one with a fried brain.

ECNL already has a Junior/Senior group called u18/u19

U18/19 is Juniors and seniors together they are saying it will be broken up Juniors on one showcase team and Seniors on another team.

That wont work. The reason u18/u19 exists is because juniors commit early and suddenly they dont care if the team wins or loses. If you split out the age groups it will just make the issue even worse. To address clubs will fill the gaps with lower level players that recruiters dont want to see.

That’s already happening many ECNL teams have to bring RL players to U19 showcases because the college commits don’t goto showcases.

D1 recruiting is usually wrapped up by the end of junior year so by senior it’s usually D2 and D3 watching at showcases. The lower level NL girls and RL girls are their targets so that makes sense.

This is also why the GY Guy wants Juniors and Seniors to attend Sophmore level Showcase events. He wants 2 maybe even 3 bites are the apple depending on how many times he can hold his kid back in school.

Starting to see why just adding a rule to SY that Aug and younger players must play on a team thats their grade makes sense? If you dont do this people like the GY Guy will continue to push for GY initially at events like Showcases but once this occurs the next phase will be league. Ultimately club soccer will look just like HS soccer. Which will translate into much less money for clubs because the same players will be consuming 3x the resources. Which will mean less demand from all the rest of the players/parents.

You know GY guy only exists as some weird straw man that you keep tossing out there. Just sayin.

Wish that was true. The person thats fighting so hard against a rule in SY that Aug and younger players must play on a team thats their grade is club owner or somone in US Club US Soccer etc. They know it would kill any chances of GY being implemented which is why theyre fighting so hard against it.

I think that theory also is not rooted in fact and made up just to argue.

No, Ive been reading this thread for a while. The pressure for GY is always there. Sometimes they drop their mask and are honest that they want GY Showcases. But usually they like to hide in the shadows fighting against a rule in SY that Aug and younger players must play with their grade. Because they know this rule would kill all pushes for GY.

No, I think that person doesn't really care about showcases and is fine however they set those. I think you're overthinking all of it. The folks who argue with you agree that playing by grade makes sense in a lot of cases -- they just think a rule about Aug-Sept overdoes it.

Understand that the rule is as much to create "GY lLite" as it is to protect against "GY No Rules".

The current clup p2p system broken out by level that roughly translates to grade works. GY no rules changes things to more of an Academy setup. Which is fine if someone other than parents are funding it. However because parents are funding youth soccer you have to find a way to transition from the youth to fhe college game. College is unrestricted GY just like HS soccer. Both are funded by someone other than parents. (college is debatable)

The only way to bridge the gap between youth soccer and college soccer while maintaining a parent funded p2p structure is GY Lite or adding a rule to SY that Aug and younger players must play with their grade. This aligns all levels with grade but doesn't allow older players to play down a grade. Which preserves parent funding at clubs.

Yeah, I think you can achieve that without a rule, because it's not as cut and dry when you're dealing with kids and what grade they might be in. Keeping it simpler based on age ALSO stops full GY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Citysc doc is real. Thats not being questioned, just that may be outdated. The Albion and MLSN screenshots are also very likely real

The CityCS pdf Metadata says that it was created on 10/16. I confirmed myself.

Metadata created dates are not reliable for a number of reasons. Why do have such a hardon for this doc?

I do software for a living and Metadata create datas are 1000% more trustworthy than some idiot accusing people of having a "hardon" for a doc

[Anonymous]

If mlsn had decided, there would have been an official announcement. Until then these docs dont mean much more than the rumors of a supposed vote mlsn is having "soon"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Citysc doc is real. Thats not being questioned, just that may be outdated. The Albion and MLSN screenshots are also very likely real

The CityCS pdf Metadata says that it was created on 10/16. I confirmed myself.

Metadata created dates are not reliable for a number of reasons. Why do have such a hardon for this doc?

I do software for a living and Metadata create datas are 1000% more trustworthy than some idiot accusing people of having a "hardon" for a doc

Have your tantrum, but I’m not wrong about medidata, your hardon and not being smart.

[Anonymous]

that socal poster still saying HD most likely SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:that socal poster still saying HD most likely SY

What suggests HD will be SY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Citysc doc is real. Thats not being questioned, just that may be outdated. The Albion and MLSN screenshots are also very likely real

The CityCS pdf Metadata says that it was created on 10/16. I confirmed myself.

Metadata created dates are not reliable for a number of reasons. Why do have such a hardon for this doc?

I do software for a living and Metadata create datas are 1000% more trustworthy than some idiot accusing people of having a "hardon" for a doc

Have your tantrum, but I’m not wrong about medidata, your hardon and not being smart.

Theres no tantrum the document says in the metadata that it was created on 10/16 it also says that it was updated on 10/16. This is black and white.

You've called people names in an attempt to refute facts. Something stinks snd its probably you with some kind of ulterior motive.

[Anonymous]

MLS Next age brackets are still undecided.

I work for a club from Madison/Milwaukee area, we’ve got MLS Next AD and HG teams at North and Mid America divisions.

We talked on last Thursday with our regional MLS Next representative. He confirmed to us they are still debating, pros and cons.

Clubs are pushing to align AD and HG age cutoffs, otherwise it’d be very difficult for us to organize the rosters and feeders from younger teams, below U13s.

Again: it’s still undecided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLS Next age brackets are still undecided.

I work for a club from Madison/Milwaukee area, we’ve got MLS Next AD and HG teams at North and Mid America divisions.

We talked on last Thursday with our regional MLS Next representative. He confirmed to us they are still debating, pros and cons.

Clubs are pushing to align AD and HG age cutoffs, otherwise it’d be very difficult for us to organize the rosters and feeders from younger teams, below U13s.

Again: it’s still undecided.

Did they give any indication of when the decision would be made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLS Next age brackets are still undecided.

I work for a club from Madison/Milwaukee area, we’ve got MLS Next AD and HG teams at North and Mid America divisions.

We talked on last Thursday with our regional MLS Next representative. He confirmed to us they are still debating, pros and cons.

Clubs are pushing to align AD and HG age cutoffs, otherwise it’d be very difficult for us to organize the rosters and feeders from younger teams, below U13s.

Again: it’s still undecided.

If HG stays BY, what is your clubs plan as to how you will handle the younger feeder teams? Will they stay BY as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLS Next age brackets are still undecided.

I work for a club from Madison/Milwaukee area, we’ve got MLS Next AD and HG teams at North and Mid America divisions.

We talked on last Thursday with our regional MLS Next representative. He confirmed to us they are still debating, pros and cons.

Clubs are pushing to align AD and HG age cutoffs, otherwise it’d be very difficult for us to organize the rosters and feeders from younger teams, below U13s.

Again: it’s still undecided.

No official news means undecided. If they keep MLS1 and MLS2 separate, how are they going to sell MLS2 program to new clubs? The pathway from MLS2 to MLS1 will be harder to sell to scam parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MLS Next age brackets are still undecided.

I work for a club from Madison/Milwaukee area, we’ve got MLS Next AD and HG teams at North and Mid America divisions.

We talked on last Thursday with our regional MLS Next representative. He confirmed to us they are still debating, pros and cons.

Clubs are pushing to align AD and HG age cutoffs, otherwise it’d be very difficult for us to organize the rosters and feeders from younger teams, below U13s.

Again: it’s still undecided.

If HG stays BY, what is your clubs plan as to how you will handle the younger feeder teams? Will they stay BY as well?

Different person, we’re at a top mlsn club in SoCal. If mlsn stays by our youngest will too.

[Anonymous]

So many littles and ecnl parents commenting about what MLS should do. I hope they stay BY and laugh in your face when your kid doesn't make the BY team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many littles and ecnl parents commenting about what MLS should do. I hope they stay BY and laugh in your face when your kid doesn't make the BY team.

wish it harder.