ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A BY team playing up against a SY team will be the same age group (u14 BY vs u14 SY). A SY team playing up against a BY team will be playing an age group up (u14 SY vs U15 BY).

But either way they'll by 6 months appart so it doesnt matter.

Actually, it's 5 months one way and 7 the other...

The minimum difference of age between SY and BY is 5 months, the maximum difference is 17 months (at U14, since August 1st 2012 to December 31st 2013)

Right, and if mixing age systems we have an potential interval of 7-19 months:

U14 BY vs U13 SY: the min 7 months (January 1st 2013 to August 1st 2013) and max 19 months (January 1st 2013 to July 31st 2014).

Now, let's add the BIOBANDING factor, and we've got a super mega complete chaos !!!

Yes, if there were 2 different groupings (BY and SY) biobanding rules would be to be brought in by 6 months to maintain the current definition/expectation.

Not that big of a deal.

BY+SY+Biobanding within the same system is not a big deal? Are you serious???

Yes if you make it so instead of allowing biobanded players to be 24 months older cap it at 18 months older and if SY teams played up against BY teams Biobanding would be exactly the same is if 2 BY teams were playing.

You should like this compromise because it limites playing down to some degree and it appears that you dont like biobanding.

[Anonymous]

It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

Saying things like this is just a way to put down people who you don’t agree with.

This thread is Jan-July parents arguing with Aug-dec parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

In my case I'm neutral, my girl is ECNL and my boy is MLS Next Homegrown.

My club has first team at MLSN Homegrown, second team MLSN Academy division.

Maybe you didn't read the previous posts: It was the p2p clubs (vast majority at MLS Next ecosystem) who asked to review the split MLS age system. It's just not possible to organize rosters with two different age systems inside a single club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

I don't understand nothing of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

Cool idea. I’m sure p2p clubs want to do exactly this… prevent parents from paying the club to roster their kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

Of course MLSNext cares about ECNL (and viceversa), actually they are competing for the same market share: parents paying huge amounts of money.

Otherwise, why do you think is the reason because they created last year MLSN Academy division? MLSNext wants (and needs) money to support the whole infrastructure of MLS academies, who are obviously losing money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

In my case I'm neutral, my girl is ECNL and my boy is MLS Next Homegrown.

My club has first team at MLSN Homegrown, second team MLSN Academy division.

Maybe you didn't read the previous posts: It was the p2p clubs (vast majority at MLS Next ecosystem) who asked to review the split MLS age system. It's just not possible to organize rosters with two different age systems inside a single club.

Why? You say that its too difficult but you don't say why.

I dont think it will be an issue because MLS handles all the player paperwork and MLS also defines the league schedule.

Are coaches not able to ask players when they were born? Are they not able to apply this to a grouping?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

In my case I'm neutral, my girl is ECNL and my boy is MLS Next Homegrown.

My club has first team at MLSN Homegrown, second team MLSN Academy division.

Maybe you didn't read the previous posts: It was the p2p clubs (vast majority at MLS Next ecosystem) who asked to review the split MLS age system. It's just not possible to organize rosters with two different age systems inside a single club.


People's refusal to see this really shocks me. I'm at an ECNL club in an area of the country where P2P MLS Next sucks and ECNL rules all, so I really have no dog in this fight, but I cannot imagine my club director trying to organize a 1st and 2nd+ team with two different age groupings. Its just not possible and theres just now way MLSN can stick with it. Especially when there is an infinitely easier option, that is just ... make the SY switch at the same time across the board for everyone. MLS Professional Academies can do whatever they want. They don't have this problem of second teams or U-little USYS teams, and they mostly play up an age group these days anyway.

Managing a club with multiple different registration systems is just a no go, not one wants to do it, not even a little bit. Even just across boys and girls (MLSN vs GA) clubs are already not happy about it. I know people are like blah blah it's fine, but it really really isn't, ask any director and they'll tell you the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

Of course MLSNext cares about ECNL (and viceversa), actually they are competing for the same market share: parents paying huge amounts of money.

Otherwise, why do you think is the reason because they created last year MLSN Academy division? MLSNext wants (and needs) money to support the whole infrastructure of MLS academies, who are obviously losing money.

I agree.

I think ultimately what MLS wants to do is use MLS2 profits to fund MLS1. In this case it makes the most sense to split them appart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this thread is 90% ECNL parents with an axe to grind against MLSN.

The sky isn't falling and MLS can run 2 seperate groupings as long as the BY grouping is the one eveyone is striving to play in.

The problem with 2 groupings is it will split MLS into 2 different types of clubs. Which personally I think is going to happen either way.

In my case I'm neutral, my girl is ECNL and my boy is MLS Next Homegrown.

My club has first team at MLSN Homegrown, second team MLSN Academy division.

Maybe you didn't read the previous posts: It was the p2p clubs (vast majority at MLS Next ecosystem) who asked to review the split MLS age system. It's just not possible to organize rosters with two different age systems inside a single club.

Why? You say that its too difficult but you don't say why.

I dont think it will be an issue because MLS handles all the player paperwork and MLS also defines the league schedule.

Are coaches not able to ask players when they were born? Are they not able to apply this to a grouping?

The P2P clubs have already spoken, it’s not a secret what happened. If you are in MLSN, ask your club why they don’t want to have a 1/1 cutoff for the first team and a 8/1 cutoff for the second team.

Talk yourself through what that would look like. Tryouts, promotions, demotions, skipping age groups. You really need us to tell you why it’s unmanageable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

Of course MLSNext cares about ECNL (and viceversa), actually they are competing for the same market share: parents paying huge amounts of money.

Otherwise, why do you think is the reason because they created last year MLSN Academy division? MLSNext wants (and needs) money to support the whole infrastructure of MLS academies, who are obviously losing money.

I agree.

I think ultimately what MLS wants to do is use MLS2 profits to fund MLS1. In this case it makes the most sense to split them appart.

Please take the time to learn the structure of MLSN. Mlsn1 is mostly p2p, they find themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no doubt ECNL is hoping MLSN stays BY

For ECNL the best case scenario would be MLSN1 BY and MLSN2 SY, because so many clubs, dads and players would decide to run away of that MLSN nightmare.

MLS could implement a rule that ECNL players must roster on a MLS2 team for 6 months before playing MLS1 and it would be over for boys ECNL. They're not doing things like this because they dont really care about ECNL.

Stop with the gloom and doom.

Of course MLSNext cares about ECNL (and viceversa), actually they are competing for the same market share: parents paying huge amounts of money.

Otherwise, why do you think is the reason because they created last year MLSN Academy division? MLSNext wants (and needs) money to support the whole infrastructure of MLS academies, who are obviously losing money.

I agree.

I think ultimately what MLS wants to do is use MLS2 profits to fund MLS1. In this case it makes the most sense to split them appart.

Please take the time to learn the structure of MLSN. Mlsn1 is mostly p2p, they find themselves.

*fund