ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If MLS1 was BY it would only be around 5 teams per club and 95% of the players would be external and internal recruits.

[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?

With all the due respect, I believe that you are misinformed about what's really happening. It's not my or your opinion, it's just the FACTS!!

Please read previous posts.

The original MLS Next plan was to keep MLSN1 BY and switch MLSN2 to SY.

What has happened (it's a fact, not an opinion) is that p2p MLS Next clubs (who have teams at both categories MLNS 1 an 2) have reacted against that plan.

Why? Because they consider a huge nightmare, problem, cumbersome task, to organize club rosters with 2 different age systems (plus biobanding).

Now, as a consequence of p2p MLS Next clubs protesting against that plan (again, p2p clubs are the vast majority of MLS Next ecosystem), the MLS Next management has decided to reevaluate the situation.

Period.

I'm describing facts, not opinions.

[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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

[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.

You are wrong:

MLSN1 (Homegrown division) is composed of 29 MLS academies and 123 p2p clubs.

Many of those 123 p2p clubs also have teams at MLSN 2 (Academy division).

So, p2p clubs' opinion is essential at MLS Next organization.

[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.

Im going to say the same thing as I wrote before. It doesnt matter how things are structured now. In MLSN there appears to be two different mindsets that control teams/clubs. One mindset is more of an Acadamy way of thinking and the other is a P2P way of thinking. They'll never get on the same page and will constantly argue about the correct path forward. Since this is the case the best thing to do is figure out a way to split them into their own islands but in the same MLS Ocean. To address the travel issue I would do 4 games per weekend at a regional location where all teams gather. But only 1 time per month. Not ideal but this lowers the transportation cost and makes it easy for recruiters to look at multiple players at the same location.

[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.

So you are demoting some mlsn1 p2p clubs to mlsn2 so they can be SY? Why would those clubs stay to play in a second flight? They would go to ecnl and be in the top division of a national league and there goes your funding source.

[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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to play up if they consider and decide so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Im going to say the same thing as I wrote before. It doesnt matter how things are structured now. In MLSN there appears to be two different mindsets that control teams/clubs. One mindset is more of an Acadamy way of thinking and the other is a P2P way of thinking. They'll never get on the same page and will constantly argue about the correct path forward. Since this is the case the best thing to do is figure out a way to split them into their own islands but in the same MLS Ocean. To address the travel issue I would do 4 games per weekend at a regional location where all teams gather. But only 1 time per month. Not ideal but this lowers the transportation cost and makes it easy for recruiters to look at multiple players at the same location.

No one is agreeing to 4 games in a weekend at this level.

[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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

Yes, for instance at Homegrown division U14 it would be like this:

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U13 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up. and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

Yes, for instance at Homegrown division U14 it would be like this:

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U13 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up. and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

Not quite. A BY 2013 team next year will be u14. So it would be SY u14 vs BY u14.

P2P u14

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

Yes, for instance at Homegrown division U14 it would be like this:

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U13 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up. and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

Not quite. A BY 2013 team next year will be u14. So it would be SY u14 vs BY u14.

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U14 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

Yes, for instance at Homegrown division U14 it would be like this:

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U13 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up. and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

Not quite. A BY 2013 team next year will be u14. So it would be SY u14 vs BY u14.

P2P u14

You are totally right, sorry for the typo. It would be:

Homegrown division U14

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U14 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up, and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is already what is happening. Mls2 and mls1 p2p help to fund the mls academies. This isn’t a new idea.

The more you split the academies away from the p2p clubs the more you ruin the appearance of a pathway. MLSN may not care about that and they may make mlsn1 p2p and mlsn2 SY and keep academies BY. That’s been discussed as a possibility for a while.

I proposed that solution many weeks ago.

MLSN 1 and MLSN 2 going SY, and leave freedom to MLS academies (and to p2p clubs also) to keep an internal BY structure and play up if they consider and decide so.

Yes, for instance at Homegrown division U14 it would be like this:

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U13 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up. and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

Not quite. A BY 2013 team next year will be u14. So it would be SY u14 vs BY u14.

P2P u14

You are totally right, sorry for the typo. It would be:

Homegrown division U14

* p2p club U14 SY: August 1 (2012) - July 31 (2013)

* MLS academy U14 BY: January 1 (2013) - December 31 (2013)

This season 2025/26 MLS academies are play 1 whole year up, and losing badly, so the previous system would reduce the impact.

It’s all so simple! I don’t know why parents would be confused. Only in the US…

[Anonymous]

Total side note question. What MLSN academies are playing up this year? Our Homegrown Team is a big feeder for the true Academy team. And former teammates now play each other - tied recently actually. At least the Academy team I know of is not playing up.