ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

When people argue to go 8-1 or even 7-1, they are sympathetic in giving the kids on the borderline the option to play in their age category or play up.

Arguing for 9-1 or 10-1 could be considered lacking trap empathy, agreed.

Going 7-1 could be an interesting way to mildly deal with RAE, essentially splitting years for July and August kids.

huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current trapped players (mostly Q4 birthdays) are forced to play with kids a grade above them. Harder for them to make / succeed on the top teams, because they’re young and so are physically and emotionally behind developmentally. And playing with kids in their grade isn’t permitted because they are too old.

New trapped players (mostly Q3 birthdays) need to be good enough to “play up” to be able to play with kids in their grade, and if they are good enough to make an ecnl team but they are not a unicorn, they’ll struggle to get recruited because they are as many as 14 months younger than their teammates and so are physically and emotionally behind. They have the option to “play down” with kids a grade below them, where they’ll look like unicorns, but then they’re off their grade’s recruiting cycle.

Sort of sucks for both groups, because for them school and soccer “cohorts” are not aligned. That’s different than being relatively older or younger under the CY/SY systems but having your school and soccer “cohorts” aligned in both (mostly Q1/Q2 kids).

This is spot on, and the Q4 animosity for Q1 is going to hit a reality wall when they see that it doesn’t make much difference in the ECNL years.

My 11 year old has 2 kids a few inches shy of 6 ft on U13 team. The U12s look like toddlers and the U14s look like men. Oh, gonna be a difference in ECNL for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When ECNL makes the switch, it is going to be so much fun watching the posts proliferate in this forum for club switching. There is going to be so much losing in the u13-u15 range and tons of the parents are going to be on full tilt because they forget that it isn’t about them.

Stock up on popcorn! 2026-2028 will be a wild window until the balance gets restored.

I’ve been saying this for a while. Anyone who thinks this change is only going to impact a handful of players on an ECNL team is kidding themselves—this is going to turn over every ECNL roster at every age at every club in the DMV.

Not really. Maybe lower ranked ECNL teams will see more movement but the higher nationally ranked teams will not. They’ve attracted the strong talent already. These teams/players seek out the harder, tougher (and sometimes older) competition when they play up themselves on older age showcases/tournaments. The mentality is to develop against tough competition, not seek out what is easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

When people argue to go 8-1 or even 7-1, they are sympathetic in giving the kids on the borderline the option to play in their age category or play up.

Arguing for 9-1 or 10-1 could be considered lacking trap empathy, agreed.

Going 7-1 could be an interesting way to mildly deal with RAE, essentially splitting years for July and August kids.

huh?

The SY people have brain-F’ed enough people to confuse “participation” and “trapped” with RAE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When ECNL makes the switch, it is going to be so much fun watching the posts proliferate in this forum for club switching. There is going to be so much losing in the u13-u15 range and tons of the parents are going to be on full tilt because they forget that it isn’t about them.

Stock up on popcorn! 2026-2028 will be a wild window until the balance gets restored.

I’ve been saying this for a while. Anyone who thinks this change is only going to impact a handful of players on an ECNL team is kidding themselves—this is going to turn over every ECNL roster at every age at every club in the DMV.

Not really. Maybe lower ranked ECNL teams will see more movement but the higher nationally ranked teams will not. They’ve attracted the strong talent already. These teams/players seek out the harder, tougher (and sometimes older) competition when they play up themselves on older age showcases/tournaments. The mentality is to develop against tough competition, not seek out what is easy.

I was referring to DMV teams, where there will be massive churn. The bottom of local teams is not going to survive Q3/Q4 players moving down a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

When people argue to go 8-1 or even 7-1, they are sympathetic in giving the kids on the borderline the option to play in their age category or play up.

Arguing for 9-1 or 10-1 could be considered lacking trap empathy, agreed.

Going 7-1 could be an interesting way to mildly deal with RAE, essentially splitting years for July and August kids.

huh?

The SY people have brain-F’ed enough people to confuse “participation” and “trapped” with RAE

Sorry for your loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When ECNL makes the switch, it is going to be so much fun watching the posts proliferate in this forum for club switching. There is going to be so much losing in the u13-u15 range and tons of the parents are going to be on full tilt because they forget that it isn’t about them.

Stock up on popcorn! 2026-2028 will be a wild window until the balance gets restored.

I’ve been saying this for a while. Anyone who thinks this change is only going to impact a handful of players on an ECNL team is kidding themselves—this is going to turn over every ECNL roster at every age at every club in the DMV.

Not really. Maybe lower ranked ECNL teams will see more movement but the higher nationally ranked teams will not. They’ve attracted the strong talent already. These teams/players seek out the harder, tougher (and sometimes older) competition when they play up themselves on older age showcases/tournaments. The mentality is to develop against tough competition, not seek out what is easy.

I was referring to DMV teams, where there will be massive churn. The bottom of local teams is not going to survive Q3/Q4 players moving down a year.

The post referenced ECNL teams and in the DMV these teams, players and coaches are known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

When people argue to go 8-1 or even 7-1, they are sympathetic in giving the kids on the borderline the option to play in their age category or play up.

Arguing for 9-1 or 10-1 could be considered lacking trap empathy, agreed.

Going 7-1 could be an interesting way to mildly deal with RAE, essentially splitting years for July and August kids.

huh?

The SY people have brain-F’ed enough people to confuse “participation” and “trapped” with RAE

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

Great point. It'll depend on the state your in AND league. There may be some that stick with BY, too, although it's hard to know at this point. If there ends up being both, that might be helpful to players who are potentially trapped by SY.

Because it isn’t about the “trap!” It’s about RAE. Nobody on the pro-SY side is being honest about this.

RAE is a big part but clearly not the main part.

If everyone "voted" in the USSF survey for RAE that makes their kids older, the vote would have been about 67% pro CY (8 months of players) and SY would have been about 33% pro SY give or take.

But in the USSF survey comments "vote" more went SY than BY and the BY's biggest concern was the hassle of change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

Great point. It'll depend on the state your in AND league. There may be some that stick with BY, too, although it's hard to know at this point. If there ends up being both, that might be helpful to players who are potentially trapped by SY.

Because it isn’t about the “trap!” It’s about RAE. Nobody on the pro-SY side is being honest about this.

RAE is a big part but clearly not the main part.

If everyone "voted" in the USSF survey for RAE that makes their kids older, the vote would have been about 67% pro CY (8 months of players) and SY would have been about 33% pro SY give or take.

But in the USSF survey comments "vote" more went SY than BY and the BY's biggest concern was the hassle of change.

You missed what the PP was trying to say.

RAE is the same under BY and SY.

By changing the dates all your doing is affecting a different group. (Exactly the same)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When ECNL makes the switch, it is going to be so much fun watching the posts proliferate in this forum for club switching. There is going to be so much losing in the u13-u15 range and tons of the parents are going to be on full tilt because they forget that it isn’t about them.

Stock up on popcorn! 2026-2028 will be a wild window until the balance gets restored.

I’ve been saying this for a while. Anyone who thinks this change is only going to impact a handful of players on an ECNL team is kidding themselves—this is going to turn over every ECNL roster at every age at every club in the DMV.

Not really. Maybe lower ranked ECNL teams will see more movement but the higher nationally ranked teams will not. They’ve attracted the strong talent already. These teams/players seek out the harder, tougher (and sometimes older) competition when they play up themselves on older age showcases/tournaments. The mentality is to develop against tough competition, not seek out what is easy.

I was referring to DMV teams, where there will be massive churn. The bottom of local teams is not going to survive Q3/Q4 players moving down a year.

The post referenced ECNL teams and in the DMV these teams, players and coaches are known.

There will be lots of change in dmv ecnl teams. Bottom of those teams will not withstand Q3/Q4 players moving down a year. Might be more player movement within ECNL than in and out of ECNL, but next year’s rosters will be substantially different. Maybe ECNL teams in other areas are stronger top to bottom, but they’re not in DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the parents of the current version of “trapped” players don’t sympathize with the kids who will be “trapped” albeit in a different way under the new system. I realize this is a smaller group and so I support the change from a “what’s best for the system” perspective, but they’ll be disadvantaged just as unfairly as your kids were.

Great point. It'll depend on the state your in AND league. There may be some that stick with BY, too, although it's hard to know at this point. If there ends up being both, that might be helpful to players who are potentially trapped by SY.

Because it isn’t about the “trap!” It’s about RAE. Nobody on the pro-SY side is being honest about this.

RAE is a big part but clearly not the main part.

If everyone "voted" in the USSF survey for RAE that makes their kids older, the vote would have been about 67% pro CY (8 months of players) and SY would have been about 33% pro SY give or take.

But in the USSF survey comments "vote" more went SY than BY and the BY's biggest concern was the hassle of change.

You missed what the PP was trying to say.

RAE is the same under BY and SY.

By changing the dates all your doing is affecting a different group. (Exactly the same)

They wrote, "It's about RAE."

[Anonymous]

Its cute to watch BY hopefuls continue to hold out hope that teams won't change. 'the better teams are fine, they are at the top already'. You really have no idea what's coming do you? WHOLESALE change.

We are in a VERY competitive area and the best teams in the nation are all here. And the best clubs want to stay that way. AT EVERY AGE GROUP.

The 2010-2012 teams (top in the nation) are already making moves. Their teams are made up of several Q3/Q4 kids. Use your imagination.... When one club drops their best 6 2011 players down to 2012 and takes that team from #30 to #1 in the country you're really so naive to think the other clubs are gonna shrug their shoulders and give up on their 2012 ranking?

If you believe that I have bridge in Brooklyn up for sale I'd love to discuss.

[Anonymous]

So what do Q3/Q4 parents plan to do this year? Stay put with current team another year?

Our whole world is changing in 2026 but now we have a dead year in front of us (which is so stupid). We can finally be untrapped but have to wait? Ugh.

[Anonymous]

RAE means?