ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Easy to blame ECNL but if the survey results are correct, the bulk of youth soccer wanted to stop using calendar year. And US Soccer is more or less following what the masses want, change but slowly.

That's not surprising. The majority of clubs never wanted to go to Birth Year to begin with. They just rolled out a bunch of mandates at once (Birth Year, Small Sided, Heading).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

I interpreted it to mean the entire document was only in the recommendation phase. Once adopted, they were mandating no change for 25-26, to the extent they can truly mandate anything about registration cutoffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

I interpreted it to mean the entire document was only in the recommendation phase. Once adopted, they were mandating no change for 25-26, to the extent they can truly mandate anything about registration cutoffs.

If that is what you think, then where are you getting “no change mandated for the 25-26 year” from? Where is the mandate in this recommendation? That sounds contradictory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Nope. There is no ‘recommended’ wording. It clearly states in bold highlight “No changes for the 25-26 season” and goes on to state under that same point “there should
be no registration changes for the 25-26 season.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Nope. There is no ‘recommended’ wording. It clearly states in bold highlight “No changes for the 25-26 season” and goes on to state under that same point “there should
be no registration changes for the 25-26 season.”

In the same paragraph " The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

All GA has to do is allow biobanding then stay BY. (Just like MLSN)

One step closer to NWSL Next.

What about USYS (NL, Elite64, etc)?

They could choose to do things however they want. People are thinking that everyone has to be BY or SY. It's not true. ECNL could allow biobanding tomorrow and teams would be SY within a BY construct.

There's even ways to arrange BY so it virtually eliminates trapped players. (July1 to July1 instead of Jan1 to Jan1)

Exactly!

This entire push is ECNL just trying to get back at US Soccer for switching to BY back in 2017 and US Soccer denying ECNL is their way to tell ECNL to sit down.

If either ECNL or US Soccer cared about trapped players both or either could solve the "issue" tomorrow.

This is about power and control.

This is so true

[Anonymous]

Pretty clear Expanded Bio banding program from ECNL would eliminate the Trapped player and allow ECNL a head start to gather up trapped player talent ahead of the pack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear Expanded Bio banding program from ECNL would eliminate the Trapped player and allow ECNL a head start to gather up trapped player talent ahead of the pack.

That would explain US Club's hiring of US Soccer's VP of Safeguarding, this week. I think that was looked over in all of the excitement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Can’t see the clubs or teams that already have very competitive talent being in a hurry to change anything especially with how loose and undecided it all seems for the 26-27 year.

[Anonymous]

USYS, U.S. Club, and AYSO have clearly signaled that they want to go back to SY. They have members on the USSF Board that were involved in the re-evaluation. This is headed to SY for most leagues in 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

If they are worried some players may get poached, their hand will be forced. I know for us, 4th qtr 2012, time is of the essence and we will go where we can start this process immediately, even if we are only allowed to train for this spring season.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Can’t see the clubs or teams that already have very competitive talent being in a hurry to change anything especially with how loose and undecided it all seems for the 26-27 year.

[Anonymous]

I am a parent of June kid and he is just starting his soccer path (2018 BY). He is already practicing with the older boys travel team and starting playing for them. From the first look I should be towards BY year because it will give my son some physical advantage to make to the best team in a club and utilize the best club resources allocated to the top team. BUT..

I’m trying to pause here and reflect on why I want my son to play soccer. The main goal is to enjoy playing, build social network and skills, and develop my son as an athlete, which is possible in the competitive environment only.
The potential long term benefit is to get college recruitment and scholarship, where he will need to compete SY anyway.

Saying this, I want my son to compete against those older kids earlier in the age rather to face that challenge prior his college time, when the players are already developed by following a different development paths and level of competitiveness. I see it as my parent responsibility to provide him with all the tools (private coaching, best club, best leagues, development path that fits him) to realize his potential and being able to compete older kids from the beginning.

That turns me towards SY approach, while I don’t see it common for most Q1/Q2 kids parents.
I’m quite new to US soccer and will appreciate if somebody may highlight some critical downsides of the SY for my kid that I’m might missing.

P.S. If my kid will be good enough and willing for a pro path, I don’t see the SY vs. BY question will make any difference. You should be easily able to make the A team anyway if you are good enough for pro path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Can’t see the clubs or teams that already have very competitive talent being in a hurry to change anything especially with how loose and undecided it all seems for the 26-27 year.

Unless they have to start thinking about players getting poached. I know for us, 2012 4qtr, we will go where we can start this process asap.

[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:How loud is the silence on ECNL?? Thats what makes the 'leak' legit in my mind and I hope it means someone is about to go rogue.

ECNL goes rogue with a fall 25 change!?

That would be bold.

That would be too bold. If there was no change ever, maybe. But pushing it to 26 has to be just enough to make ECNL grumble, go along with it, and just make some transitory change for 25.

I'd be with you on the logic here but zero mention in the announcement? They thanked everyone and their grandma for their input and alignment but ECNL, the #1 talent destination for female players doesn't even get a nod. No way that's by accident. They question is, why? I look forward to 70 pages of speculation but my guess is they made their position clear...and its threatening.

What are you talking about, they thanked them first. You guys are clueless. US Club = ECNL.

If the google doc is real, I think it gives US Club enough wiggle room to start immediately, even if that means some sort of waiver system for the rest of 25'.

Whoever starts earlier will be able to get more Q3/4 players, currently there’s a lack of a full age group in the older teams. Those clubs that start early will be able to have plenty of players when time comes and all the other leagues do it formally.

Agree the early adopter will get more of the market share in this one. Most Q3-Q-4 won’t want to sit around on a team they will be ineligible for the next year..that just doesn’t make any sense . They would be the odd man out with it hanging over their head all year. Why would you be a mercenary for a year knowing you are booted the following..if ECNL goes early or figures out a work around they will allow for more settling earlier…

But isn’t it no change mandated for the 25-26 year? And then change is possible in 2 years (26-27) but even then it’s all vague with individual choices seemingly all a go and these differences across (even within?) clubs and regions will still work? Is this even realistic or legitimate?

If that PDF is to be believed, it said “recommended” no change for 25-26. I would think smart clubs would try to get a head start and change it next year so teams already have one year under the belt to compete together before the big change in 26-27.

Can’t see the clubs or teams that already have very competitive talent being in a hurry to change anything especially with how loose and undecided it all seems for the 26-27 year.

Unless they have to start thinking about players getting poached. I know for us, 2012 4qtr, we will go where we can start this process asap.

2x