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:

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.

I think people are assuming that some leagues will formally commit to SY for 26-27 before tryouts for 25-26.

[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.

Competitive clubs that already have the talent on teams (especially in the older HS ages) are unlikely to change anything in 25-26 without knowing for sure how things will pan out for 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:

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.

Competitive clubs that already have the talent on teams (especially in the older HS ages) are unlikely to change anything in 25-26 without knowing for sure how things will pan out for 26-27.

US Club will make an announcement before the end of the year, we already know that they will be changing to school year, in my opinion only I think clubs will start maneuvering much earlier than Fall of '26. Maybe even as close as this spring. In my part of the world, it is insanely competitive, and I don't think the club's will be able to afford to wait, if that door gets opened. I just don't see the sense in playing a full year with a team that we know we will likely not be on the following year....but we may have to suck it up. We shall see.

[Anonymous]

The announcement ignored the elephant in the room which is ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The announcement ignored the elephant in the room which is ECNL.

ECNL is US Club

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain how clubs could start this earlier? Right not in ECNL trapped players are not allowed to play down except for half the season and even then only two are allowed to be rostered for a game. How could individual clubs “start early” if ECNL doesn’t allow for that?

[Anonymous]

Mine graduates in 2026. Glad his team will be unaffected. They play well together and support one another. I’d have hated to see them broken up. Just my unpopular opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how clubs could start this earlier? Right not in ECNL trapped players are not allowed to play down except for half the season and even then only two are allowed to be rostered for a game. How could individual clubs “start early” if ECNL doesn’t allow for that?

I think the assumption is US Club/ECNL will allow some form of biobanding for this spring and possibly next year if they decide not to poke the bear. They have stated they would like to address the trapped player situation asap, hence the noise for the last part of a year. Having clubs and teams sit on their hands for a year and half seems like a nightmare, I am sure some will want to get ahead of it and start combining teams soon, those teams would need to play up, but that is easy enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how clubs could start this earlier? Right not in ECNL trapped players are not allowed to play down except for half the season and even then only two are allowed to be rostered for a game. How could individual clubs “start early” if ECNL doesn’t allow for that?

And how would it work with every club having individual choice to do as they want in 26-27? How would tournaments work with different areas/clubs/teams using completely different systems?

[Anonymous]

My daughter would be a trapped player. How do trap players stay competitive for being recruited? Serious question. I don't understand how it works with BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain how clubs could start this earlier? Right not in ECNL trapped players are not allowed to play down except for half the season and even then only two are allowed to be rostered for a game. How could individual clubs “start early” if ECNL doesn’t allow for that?

And how would it work with every club having individual choice to do as they want in 26-27? How would tournaments work with different areas/clubs/teams using completely different systems?

It won't be that difficult, US Club encompasses ECNL, ECNL-RL, NPL, Super Copa among others. They will all adopt the same registration. The clubs can make a choice not to embrace the change but that would disadvantages because the club across town will embrace the change, now all of your Q4 players have made your rival better because you were unwilling to read the writing on the wall. If its all about money as has been said...more wins = more money. Economics 101

[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…

Yep, if the change is indeed coming in 26, every club will have incentive to unofficially change earlier to grab Q3/Q4 kids before their value increases. Combine that with the parent outrage on display about the delay causing awkward temporary rosters for even more club incentive to jump the gun. At minimum, expect A teams to put some more late birthdays on their bench to prepare for the future. The mere prospect of change coming in 26-27 will cause a miraculous improvement in RAE.

And THIS is why soccer will continue to struggle in this country. Worried about winning trophies with any physical advantage possible instead of developing skilled, technical, smart players who know how to use their size - no matter big or small. Like a goat that keeps on eating paper and ramming his head against the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First common sense Q2 parent I've seen on this forum. Not sure if you care about validation but I believe you're thinking about this correctly. SY is the obvious path because the key concept is everyone must eventually compete against kids in their grade. It'll make it more fun on the front end and it'll be a consistent barometer of their true talent and potential. I have a January kid that got a wakeup call in junior high (above average player but thought he was amazing) and I have a November child that is incredibly gifted but only thinks she is very good. At school next year I'm excited for her to learn that she's not just great but she's one of the best players in the state for her grade. BY nonsense is why there is a disconnect on both ends and I can't wait for the world to make sense. In the US its about school grade competition. You're right to get your son into that system ASAP to avoid future surprises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The announcement ignored the elephant in the room which is ECNL.

ECNL is US Club

ECNL will wait until clear in 26/27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mine graduates in 2026. Glad his team will be unaffected. They play well together and support one another. I’d have hated to see them broken up. Just my unpopular opinion.

It's not unpopular. The only people pushing for this are fall birthday families, which is maybe a quarter of the players at best as they are low birth months to start with. Everyone else is fine with it the way it is. Hold your kid back in school if you are so bent out if shape. Problem solved.