ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should adopt the metric system too while we are at it. Using both BY age cutoffs and meters US will win a World Cup in no time

You asked others to provide 3 examples of BY. They provided the examples. Gave details about each one and explained why kids with 1/1 birthdays are a specific grade.

You provided nothing.

Wrong guy. I was just poking fun how people are making it seem like age cutoffs is the magic key to international success or a requisite for professional soccer.

Well if you understand that European countries make age the determiner for when kids start school. It makes sense that Jan 1st is the oldest someone can be in each grade. It also explains why European countries use BY not SY. When it comes to international play BY teams will be 6-7 months older than SY teams. Which is likely why MLS wants to stay BY.

MLS academies play international maybe once per year. FC Dallas has their u15s in Europe now in a tournament with Chelsea in their bracket. They have a certain number of overage players they bring to play against BY teams.

So you're arguing for BY?

No, I’m arguing that an age cutoff doesn’t make a difference. Basing a decision on the small number of teams that actually play internationally is not very smart especially when other countries like England make it work. Make the best decision for the US and move on.

England (EPL) pays for talent that wins games. So SY doesnt really matter.

An age cutoff isn’t a determining factor in how well a country develops talent. England does many things better than the US and has had consistently stronger national teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should adopt the metric system too while we are at it. Using both BY age cutoffs and meters US will win a World Cup in no time

You asked others to provide 3 examples of BY. They provided the examples. Gave details about each one and explained why kids with 1/1 birthdays are a specific grade.

You provided nothing.

Wrong guy. I was just poking fun how people are making it seem like age cutoffs is the magic key to international success or a requisite for professional soccer.

Well if you understand that European countries make age the determiner for when kids start school. It makes sense that Jan 1st is the oldest someone can be in each grade. It also explains why European countries use BY not SY. When it comes to international play BY teams will be 6-7 months older than SY teams. Which is likely why MLS wants to stay BY.

MLS academies play international maybe once per year. FC Dallas has their u15s in Europe now in a tournament with Chelsea in their bracket. They have a certain number of overage players they bring to play against BY teams.

So you're arguing for BY?

No, I’m arguing that an age cutoff doesn’t make a difference. Basing a decision on the small number of teams that actually play internationally is not very smart especially when other countries like England make it work. Make the best decision for the US and move on.

England (EPL) pays for talent that wins games. So SY doesnt really matter.

Neither does BY. Unfortunately the talent part does and age cutoff won’t change that.

[Anonymous]

5-1 USA over Uruguay. USA! USA! USA!

Wow, that was easy. Problems solved!

[Anonymous]

Check out this story

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6589530/2025/09/02/us-soccer-youth-development-challenge-matt-crocker-usmnt-uswnt/

"Tangibly, thus far, they’ve begun to coordinate a “unified youth calendar” with leagues like MLS Next. They are working on digital platforms. They are reaching out, building trust."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out this story

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6589530/2025/09/02/us-soccer-youth-development-challenge-matt-crocker-usmnt-uswnt/

"Tangibly, thus far, they’ve begun to coordinate a “unified youth calendar” with leagues like MLS Next. They are working on digital platforms. They are reaching out, building trust."

US Soccer cares about the age cutoff? That’s a first. Looks like it’s from September but I can’t open it, any useful information?

[Anonymous]

Someone posted in full here:
https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/soccer/nyt--us-soccer-has-a-new-vision-for-youth-development/119982606/

[Anonymous]

Doesn't seem to say anything about BY or SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Check out this story

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6589530/2025/09/02/us-soccer-youth-development-challenge-matt-crocker-usmnt-uswnt/

"Tangibly, thus far, they’ve begun to coordinate a “unified youth calendar” with leagues like MLS Next. They are working on digital platforms. They are reaching out, building trust."

As the article states, USA Way is just a presentation and a plan w/o tangible action and just lists stuff being done that should be done better. Rinse, repeat as the new guy comes in with the same old non-solution thinking they found Jesus. Sure a few things will change but they might not even be for the better. Really goes to show US Soccer doesn't care about youth soccer and doesn't want it have the resources to do much of anything.

[Anonymous]

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/u-soccer-vision-youth-development-130107922.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://sports.yahoo.com/article/u-soccer-vision-youth-development-130107922.html

Why do they insist on hiring people who have zero knowledge, understanding or connections in the landscape here and then expect them to do anything? This dude spent his career in Wales. Great! That environment surely translates well to the US! The guy spent his first year doing nothing because he simply couldn't even grasp what is going on here. And still likely doesn't get it. Then he'll be out the door with a nice payday and they'll bring in the next guy to do the same. But at least he'll have a cool accent!

The article can be summarized as: "we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://sports.yahoo.com/article/u-soccer-vision-youth-development-130107922.html

Why do they insist on hiring people who have zero knowledge, understanding or connections in the landscape here and then expect them to do anything? This dude spent his career in Wales. Great! That environment surely translates well to the US! The guy spent his first year doing nothing because he simply couldn't even grasp what is going on here. And still likely doesn't get it. Then he'll be out the door with a nice payday and they'll bring in the next guy to do the same. But at least he'll have a cool accent!

The article can be summarized as: "we've tried nothing and we're out of ideas".

Wasn't training the coaches one of the primary aspects of DA?

Everything old is new again.

[Anonymous]

It feels like nobody’s really talking about this, but college soccer is about to flip on its head. I’ve heard from a few good sources this week, all saying the same thing, and it lines up with what I’ve been seeing for a while. If Division 2 gets five years of playing time, loads of top Division 1 players will drop down just to squeeze out one more season. That alone is going to raise the level in D2 fast.


Then you add what I’m hearing about four year schools getting ready to run reserve sides in the UPSL. It actually makes total sense. There are way too many players and not enough proper roster spots, especially with internationals coming in and everyone hanging around on extra eligibility. Schools need somewhere to put all the kids who still want to play, and UPSL gives them that outlet.


Put those things together and the whole landscape shifts. Deeper squads, more competition, fewer real minutes, and a much tougher road for freshmen trying to break through.

Big changes coming. College soccer is going to look very different soon. Will this affect the academy youth eco system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like nobody’s really talking about this, but college soccer is about to flip on its head. I’ve heard from a few good sources this week, all saying the same thing, and it lines up with what I’ve been seeing for a while. If Division 2 gets five years of playing time, loads of top Division 1 players will drop down just to squeeze out one more season. That alone is going to raise the level in D2 fast.


Then you add what I’m hearing about four year schools getting ready to run reserve sides in the UPSL. It actually makes total sense. There are way too many players and not enough proper roster spots, especially with internationals coming in and everyone hanging around on extra eligibility. Schools need somewhere to put all the kids who still want to play, and UPSL gives them that outlet.


Put those things together and the whole landscape shifts. Deeper squads, more competition, fewer real minutes, and a much tougher road for freshmen trying to break through.

Big changes coming. College soccer is going to look very different soon. Will this affect the academy youth eco system?

What do you mean by reverse sides? Basically fielding a second team in a professional league?

[Anonymous]

MLSN is in the process of purchasing and acquiring the GA, if it goes through which it sounds like it more than likely yes. Will this affect the SY and BY? and the another twist is any club that has MLSN will have to bring girls side into GA and leave ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MLSN is in the process of purchasing and acquiring the GA, if it goes through which it sounds like it more than likely yes. Will this affect the SY and BY? and the another twist is any club that has MLSN will have to bring girls side into GA and leave ECNL.

Youth soccer all going SY regardless