ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It should be u15 and up in mlsnext games. If a friendly they can play whatever age they want.

[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.

Was thinking it was 90% MLSN and GA parents drinking the Kool aid. The "merger" is vaporware and there is no real MLSN2, just a rebadged NAL running like a franchise.

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

This could happen. What will not happen (or if it does will not be successful) is MLSN creating a division that is entirely BY and isolating itself from the rest of MLSN.

If the academies stay BY but MLSN is SY, p2p clubs don’t need permission from MLSN to stay BY and play up. Clubs can organize around whatever cutoff they want as long as they play up and not down. We might see a lot of that in the beginning but overtime it will be difficult for p2p clubs to compete playing up and most will end up switching over.

This could be a mess. I wonder if US Soccer is regretting not making a decision.

[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.

Was thinking it was 90% MLSN and GA parents drinking the Kool aid. The "merger" is vaporware and there is no real MLSN2, just a rebadged NAL running like a franchise.

After next year MLS would need to make MLS2 SY before forcing clubs to switch to MLS+GA.

Or theyd be switching from BY to SY then back to BY.

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

[Anonymous]

Q1's are still favored under SY.... just not as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It should be u15 and up in mlsnext games. If a friendly they can play whatever age they want.

The MLS Academies that are playing up are the true academies U15 and up. The ones tied to the professional teams like DC. United, Philadelphia Union, Red Bulls,

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

No, they just re-form teams for international events. Other than that, they all play the same age brackets while in country. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The 29 MLS academies are playing 1 up to have more competitive games for their players. Simply, a more challenging environment.

However it's not working as expected, in many cases the results are being devastating.

For a whole team playing 1 year up, it means from 12 months up to 24 months age difference, too much. I think MLS academies won't be interested in this 1 year up playing any more.

However, MLS academies keeping BY structure, while the rest goes SY would be beneficial for everybody.

In that way the age difference span would be less, only from 5 months up to 17 months, not too bad.

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

Youth results don’t matter. There is no age cutoff that is better at developing pro players than another age cutoff. It’s what you do with that development and that’s what’s infuriating about this whole process. None of it matters! Pick a cutoff and get back to dealing with what will actually impact development.

[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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

No, they just re-form teams for international events. Other than that, they all play the same age brackets while in country. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Yea last minute put together teams tend to do well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

No, they just re-form teams for international events. Other than that, they all play the same age brackets while in country. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Yea last minute put together teams tend to do well.

There are ways that it is dealt with. Tournaments in Europe that I’m familiar with (some, not all) are BY but allow a certain number of over age players. This allows an even playing field with 9/1 teams. It’s not hastily constructed teams as you are implying.

Having said that, academies don’t care about teams. They care about individuals they can make money off of, whether that’s signing a homegrown or selling (and unless they are a duel citizen, that’s at 18+). They don’t care about team results as long as the players they have targeted are developing in a way that makes them a potential pro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 play up if they consider and decide so.

That would make sense but it would completely sever the academies from a direct pipeline of players. If all of the rest of the soccer landscape starts selecting for Q4 players, but the academies need Q1 players, well things will get interesting in a few years.

So if they do this (your plan), the academies will become SY within a few years anyway. Then just follow the England model.

Is the England model a plan to have players 6 months younger than the international BY norm?

BTW England + SY only works because EPL pays the most for talent at the pro level. This allows them to not worry about Youth Academy results because for the most part they don't matter.

No, they just re-form teams for international events. Other than that, they all play the same age brackets while in country. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.

Yea last minute put together teams tend to do well.

Do well in what? I thought results didn't matter?

It actually seems like an interesting development opportunity to me. They don't seem to have a problem with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The 29 MLS academies are playing 1 up to have more competitive games for their players. Simply, a more challenging environment.

However it's not working as expected, in many cases the results are being devastating.

For a whole team playing 1 year up, it means from 12 months up to 24 months age difference, too much. I think MLS academies won't be interested in this 1 year up playing any more.

However, MLS academies keeping BY structure, while the rest goes SY would be beneficial for everybody.

In that way the age difference span would be less, only from 5 months up to 17 months, not too bad.

I don’t think the academies have a problem with the results, I think they have a problem with being told what age group they have to play their kids. The ones I’m familiar with like to play a few kids up but certainly not all. It’s not developmentally appropriate for all kids. The academies see playing up or on age as a development tool and that choice has been taken away from them.