ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to this thread, and it’s interesting how invested people are in this issue. It seems to me that there will always be a 12 month spread no matter how they place the cut offs. Younger kids will always be at a slight disadvantage. It’s just going to be different kids. So the real issue is “trapped” players? An extra year of exposure doesn’t necessarily seem like a bad thing if your player is strong? So are all the SY advocates parents of smaller August-December players that aren’t getting much playing time? And if we moved to SY we’d have a similar issue with parents of February-July birthdays? Let’s just pick a cut off and live with it instead of upending these teams every 10 years.

Yes.

The whiny 'but my poor baby!' are the only one din here making this a 200 page thread. They say the same thing over and over. I dislike waiting 10 years to go back if they are going to. I still don't understand why anyone cares this much outside of hoping their sweet baby gets a scholarship to college. Life sucks and someone has to get the shirt end if the stick. Stop complaining and just deal with it.

Nobody cares about what you dislike or don't understand. You're welcome to STFU then deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to this thread, and it’s interesting how invested people are in this issue. It seems to me that there will always be a 12 month spread no matter how they place the cut offs. Younger kids will always be at a slight disadvantage. It’s just going to be different kids. So the real issue is “trapped” players? An extra year of exposure doesn’t necessarily seem like a bad thing if your player is strong? So are all the SY advocates parents of smaller August-December players that aren’t getting much playing time? And if we moved to SY we’d have a similar issue with parents of February-July birthdays? Let’s just pick a cut off and live with it instead of upending these teams every 10 years.

“Trapped” doesn’t exist. It’s a crutch parents and kids use to excuse and blame outcomes they don’t like.

Youth soccer age dates create a misalignment for some players and their school grades. People refer to them they trapped players. You can use the term misaligned if trapped isn't to your personal liking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was not going through the moment Sd Surf posted their tryout dates which are next week.

There is absolutely no way the logistics would work for them to separate 3 or more age groups with such little time.

This was the biggest sign that it would not happen Fall 2025

What’s funny is that the socal board had emails and messages all saying they’ve been told it’s done and that it wouldn’t be implemented in 25 but it would in 26. Now it’s not happening period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was not going through the moment Sd Surf posted their tryout dates which are next week.

There is absolutely no way the logistics would work for them to separate 3 or more age groups with such little time.

This was the biggest sign that it would not happen Fall 2025

What’s funny is that the socal board had emails and messages all saying they’ve been told it’s done and that it wouldn’t be implemented in 25 but it would in 26. Now it’s not happening period.

Do you have zero reading comprehension? It doesn’t say that at all

[Anonymous]

It will happen next fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will happen next fall.

According to what source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

I think it has more to do with winning over development mentality.

Sure ECNL can break off and do their own thing, but what will that do? Create more college players? There an only a few college programs that play out the back and play a technical style. Same with Club soccer.

Once coaches start coaching, that’s when things will change.

Coaches want/need wins, I agree they are at the center of the problem. I don't think this can be fixed, you give them the rules, they are going to try to win. Heck, the kids want to win too, and the parents, and the clubs. We need better rules.

A trial revolutionary solution is needed, something like running fall seasons in ECRL under SY and the spring under CY. Or the spring season stops at the end of April but a summer exhibition season starts under different age dates.

I am amazed at the lack of creative thinking to reduce RAE in all of youth sports.

That's interesting. But how would that work. 2 tryouts per year? Tryouts already start way too early. Why are we selecting teams that start in late August in April.

These team silos are half the problem. So 3, 4 or 5 kids go up or down an age category or are bumped up from the second team but everyone is already in the same club. No tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will happen next fall.

I think there’s still a chance.
Probably smaller leagues will delay for a year and GA/ECNL will go Fall 2025.

[Anonymous]

Wait so is it happening fall 2025 or not??

Can you all make it clear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To grab at a share of parents pay to play money, US Soccer pulls in about $10 million from youth soccer registrations and overinflated coach license fees. And US Soccer has the expense of running major pro tournaments in the near future, the cost of moving their headquarters and couldn't even afford to pay there men's national team coach without a donation.

If US Soccer continually sides with a few years youth national teams (say 100 kids) trying to get a couple of relatively meaningless wins at the expense of grass roots soccer plus what I will call mainstream travel soccer plus the youth soccer pathway into the college game (millions of kids), I just can't see a scenario where youth soccer, AYSO, USYS and USCS, doesn't tell US Soccer to pound sand and start their own governance.

Not arguing whether youth soccer should be SY or CY but US Soccer is completely responsible for blindly allowing RAE to thrive and not coming up with any tangible solutions. The crazy thing is that it is in US Soccer's best interest to grow the game and allow the younger half of an age group to be on something close to equal footing with the older half in opportunity but US Soccer has been wholly negligent.

US Soccer would have better senior national teams if they were able to make a dent in RAE as they could have the opportunity to pull from a pool of players up to double the current pool to pick the best players.

The billions of dollars in the youth soccer economy waiting for orders from US Soccer who only pulls in about $150 million a year is too imbalanced to continue. I can't see a scenario where youth soccer doesn't splinter at this point.

So to be clear, US Soccer's failure isn't centered on not listening to youth soccer who want to adjust their age dates, it is on not being a leader in fixing RAE.

I think it has more to do with winning over development mentality.

Sure ECNL can break off and do their own thing, but what will that do? Create more college players? There an only a few college programs that play out the back and play a technical style. Same with Club soccer.

Once coaches start coaching, that’s when things will change.

Coaches want/need wins, I agree they are at the center of the problem. I don't think this can be fixed, you give them the rules, they are going to try to win. Heck, the kids want to win too, and the parents, and the clubs. We need better rules.

A trial revolutionary solution is needed, something like running fall seasons in ECRL under SY and the spring under CY. Or the spring season stops at the end of April but a summer exhibition season starts under different age dates.

I am amazed at the lack of creative thinking to reduce RAE in all of youth sports.

It's easy to solve...

Change BY from Jan1-Jan1 to July1-July1 + there's no more trapped players.

Then give Jan1-July1 (the second half of the grouping year) the ability to play down an age group (if the want) until u13 + there's no more RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was not going through the moment Sd Surf posted their tryout dates which are next week.

There is absolutely no way the logistics would work for them to separate 3 or more age groups with such little time.

This was the biggest sign that it would not happen Fall 2025

What’s funny is that the socal board had emails and messages all saying they’ve been told it’s done and that it wouldn’t be implemented in 25 but it would in 26. Now it’s not happening period.

Do you have zero reading comprehension? It doesn’t say that at all

This was prior to the leak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait so is it happening fall 2025 or not??

Can you all make it clear?

Still unsure.

The MICHIGAN email was for USYS.
We know USYS 100% is not going School year.

We can assume no one will…but until something is official, we don’t know

[Anonymous]

.

It's easy to solve...

Change BY from Jan1-Jan1 to July1-July1 + there's no more trapped players.

Then give Jan1-July1 (the second half of the grouping year) the ability to play down an age group (if the want) until u13 + there's no more RAE.

haha ... if they want ... It'll be what the clubs want and it'll be based on how to make the best teams sending parents scrambling. What you propose might ironically lead to Jan-Jul players still being the majority. FWIW, ironically the pushback to the change i hear now is from Aug-Dec parents who don't want their kids to play down (even if the experts say that might benefit them). That's why they should change BUT start with the youngest age group and go from there. Maybe that's where your flexibility works (for that Jan-July cohort) -- for that transition year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.

It's easy to solve...

Change BY from Jan1-Jan1 to July1-July1 + there's no more trapped players.

Then give Jan1-July1 (the second half of the grouping year) the ability to play down an age group (if the want) until u13 + there's no more RAE.

haha ... if they want ... It'll be what the clubs want and it'll be based on how to make the best teams sending parents scrambling. What you propose might ironically lead to Jan-Jul players still being the majority. FWIW, ironically the pushback to the change i hear now is from Aug-Dec parents who don't want their kids to play down (even if the experts say that might benefit them). That's why they should change BUT start with the youngest age group and go from there. Maybe that's where your flexibility works (for that Jan-July cohort) -- for that transition year.
What I proposed gives everyone what they want.

What I like about it is the 2nd half of the year players playing down would be on parents and clubs to decide. In the end nobody would choose this option because of ego. But the RAE argument would go away.

[Anonymous]

What I proposed gives everyone what they want.

What I like about it is the 2nd half of the year players playing down would be on parents and clubs to decide. In the end nobody would choose this option because of ego. But the RAE argument would go away.