ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

In some areas there is no ECNL season in the spring to allow for HS soccer. But for 25-26 are you suggesting that clubs should play every team up a year? Is this really realistic? Why would competitive clubs that usually have multiple teams qualifying for nationals for example, compromise this without even a definitive idea of changes for 2 years from now?

You are operating under the assumption that there is a chance that they will never change to BY and in that case, caution would be warranted. But...we know that ECNL will making this change asap, it is a foregone conclusion unless something catastrophic happens. This is all hypothetical until we here from US Club so take it for what its worth.

No, this is with the assumption that there is likely to be change in some form in 26-27 as understood. But the part about changing things in the spring or next year and having all clubs play their teams up a year makes little sense and seems very unrealistic.

Most probably won't, but some will, that is all I am saying. It can take a full year to get new players acclimated to a new team, coach, environment. Why not start now? especially if they allow trapped players to play in their appropriate age group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn’t a “common sense Q2” parent perspective, it’s the same perspective that would be common sense for a Q4 parent, or a Q1 parent regardless of cut-off.

The problem is and continues to be that too many Q4 parents do not have this perspective, it’s the only reason that age cutoff has ever been an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MLS allows 3 biobanding players to play down a year in the current BY system without offending US Soccer, I do not see any reason why ECNL can not let up to 3 Q3/Q4 players play down in their grade. This will smooth the transition and better college recruiting exposure.

Early bloomers born in Q3/Q4 should play down under the umbrella of biobanding?

[Anonymous]

yup....get ready for it. Coming to an ECNL league near you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MLS allows 3 biobanding players to play down a year in the current BY system without offending US Soccer, I do not see any reason why ECNL can not let up to 3 Q3/Q4 players play down in their grade. This will smooth the transition and better college recruiting exposure.

Early bloomers born in Q3/Q4 should play down under the umbrella of biobanding?

The example of MLS biobanding rule is served as an example that a league can setup its own rule under the BY system.

ECNL wants to resolve trap players issue soon, then it should allow 2 or 3 Q3/Q4 players to play down in their grade now if ECNL will switch to SY in 26/27. There is no point to wait another year for the ultimate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MLS allows 3 biobanding players to play down a year in the current BY system without offending US Soccer, I do not see any reason why ECNL can not let up to 3 Q3/Q4 players play down in their grade. This will smooth the transition and better college recruiting exposure.

Early bloomers born in Q3/Q4 should play down under the umbrella of biobanding?

The example of MLS biobanding rule is served as an example that a league can setup its own rule under the BY system.

ECNL wants to resolve trap players issue soon, then it should allow 2 or 3 Q3/Q4 players to play down in their grade now if ECNL will switch to SY in 26/27. There is no point to wait another year for the ultimate change.

Doesnt make sense to limit it. Any kid good enough to wear the patch should be able to play all season and playoffs.

[Anonymous]

It's not playing down unless Q4 kids have been playing up for the last 8 years. Stop the nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not playing down unless Q4 kids have been playing up for the last 8 years. Stop the nonsense.

Aren't the 2010 Q4's playing U15 now with other 2010's?

Wouldn't playing with 2011's next year have them playing down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

In some areas there is no ECNL season in the spring to allow for HS soccer. But for 25-26 are you suggesting that clubs should play every team up a year? Is this really realistic? Why would competitive clubs that usually have multiple teams qualifying for nationals for example, compromise this without even a definitive idea of changes for 2 years from now?

You are operating under the assumption that there is a chance that they will never change to BY and in that case, caution would be warranted. But...we know that ECNL will making this change asap, it is a foregone conclusion unless something catastrophic happens. This is all hypothetical until we here from US Club so take it for what its worth.

No, this is with the assumption that there is likely to be change in some form in 26-27 as understood. But the part about changing things in the spring or next year and having all clubs play their teams up a year makes little sense and seems very unrealistic.

Most probably won't, but some will, that is all I am saying. It can take a full year to get new players acclimated to a new team, coach, environment. Why not start now? especially if they allow trapped players to play in their appropriate age group.

But this is always true for any time players move clubs and teams ..adjusting to a team is not unique to the possible change in 26-27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MLS allows 3 biobanding players to play down a year in the current BY system without offending US Soccer, I do not see any reason why ECNL can not let up to 3 Q3/Q4 players play down in their grade. This will smooth the transition and better college recruiting exposure.

Early bloomers born in Q3/Q4 should play down under the umbrella of biobanding?

The example of MLS biobanding rule is served as an example that a league can setup its own rule under the BY system.

ECNL wants to resolve trap players issue soon, then it should allow 2 or 3 Q3/Q4 players to play down in their grade now if ECNL will switch to SY in 26/27. There is no point to wait another year for the ultimate change.

MLS Next biobanding follows biobanding guidelines established in other countries

Not a concept they just threw together

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MLS allows 3 biobanding players to play down a year in the current BY system without offending US Soccer, I do not see any reason why ECNL can not let up to 3 Q3/Q4 players play down in their grade. This will smooth the transition and better college recruiting exposure.

Early bloomers born in Q3/Q4 should play down under the umbrella of biobanding?

The example of MLS biobanding rule is served as an example that a league can setup its own rule under the BY system.

ECNL wants to resolve trap players issue soon, then it should allow 2 or 3 Q3/Q4 players to play down in their grade now if ECNL will switch to SY in 26/27. There is no point to wait another year for the ultimate change.

Doesnt make sense to limit it. Any kid good enough to wear the patch should be able to play all season and playoffs.

I don’t think there should be a limit if ECNL will do this. Let hope so anyway.

[Anonymous]

ECNL does allow 2 trapped players to play “down” while their home team is in Highschool soccer season. Once the season is over, they go back to their home team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not playing down unless Q4 kids have been playing up for the last 8 years. Stop the nonsense.

Aren't the 2010 Q4's playing U15 now with other 2010's?

Wouldn't playing with 2011's next year have them playing down?

The better wording should be play in his/her own grade. In your logic, the current Q1 has been playing down for the last 8 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL does allow 2 trapped players to play “down” while their home team is in Highschool soccer season. Once the season is over, they go back to their home team.

I hope ECNL can make the trapped players play "down" permanently while waiting for the 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.

2x

+1