ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Is Homegrown MLSN1? This isn't gonna work for clubs with both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Homegrown MLSN1? This isn't gonna work for clubs with both.

Yup. Complete sh**show. Probably the worst decision they could have made. Commit to BY or make the change to SY. I can’t see this decision lasting very long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Announced officially.

"Beginning in the 2026-27 season, player registration for within MLS NEXT will be as follows: Allstate Homegrown Division will continue to use Birth-Year age groups (January 1 - December 31). Academy Division will change to School-Year age groups (August 1 - July 31).

Player registration via Birth-Year remains the optimal structure for the Allstate Homegrown Division, as it aligns with FIFA standards, the global professional pathway and greatly benefits our youth national teams.

The School Year age group system is the most suitable structure for the Academy Division, as it aligns with the broader youth soccer landscape across the United States and creates opportunities for continued collaboration and growth between MLS NEXT and the wider youth soccer ecosystem."

ECNL gotta throw a party over that. Should reduce the relative age effect for boys having similar leagues with age cutoffs about 6 months apart.

The best boys will still want to play MLSN the only difference is now the mid level Aug-Dec players might think otherwise. But with biobanding who knows.

[Anonymous]

So the Aug-dec kids who get cut from let’s say the rising u15 homegrown (A) team will now repeat the u14 year on the academy (B) team. LOL you can’t make this up!

[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.

You think they're playing up for team results only?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Aug-dec kids who get cut from let’s say the rising u15 homegrown (A) team will now repeat the u14 year on the academy (B) team. LOL you can’t make this up!

Yes and that u14 2nd team who will probably have at least half of not more Aug-Dec 2012s will probably beat the u14 1st team from the same club filled with all 2013s. Bc this makes total sense…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Homegrown MLSN1? This isn't gonna work for clubs with both.

Yup. Complete sh**show. Probably the worst decision they could have made. Commit to BY or make the change to SY. I can’t see this decision lasting very long.

MLS Next is BY because they stand alone

The MLS Next 2 or 'Academy' division is just NAL with a different badge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the Aug-dec kids who get cut from let’s say the rising u15 homegrown (A) team will now repeat the u14 year on the academy (B) team. LOL you can’t make this up!

I’m pretty sure MLSN will allow 5 bioband players starting next year. That’s the rumor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Aug-dec kids who get cut from let’s say the rising u15 homegrown (A) team will now repeat the u14 year on the academy (B) team. LOL you can’t make this up!

Yes and that u14 2nd team who will probably have at least half of not more Aug-Dec 2012s will probably beat the u14 1st team from the same club filled with all 2013s. Bc this makes total sense…

So what if they beat them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Aug-dec kids who get cut from let’s say the rising u15 homegrown (A) team will now repeat the u14 year on the academy (B) team. LOL you can’t make this up!

I’m pretty sure MLSN will allow 5 bioband players starting next year. That’s the rumor.

Biobanding should not be used to correct for the age change. If you want to sell biobanding for late developers that’s fine, but this is a slippery slope. 5 players means half the starting line up of field players would be up to a year older. Why even have age groups?

[Anonymous]

Our club is currently MLSN2 … flying now to ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our club is currently MLSN2 … flying now to ECNL.

So what’s the point of MLS2 now? No pathway to 1 and isn’t a great b team option if the age cutoff doesn’t align with the top team.

[Anonymous]

Ours is potentially moving to MLSN1 so we are still completely in limbo. Definitely considering all options.

[Anonymous]

ECNL just became an equal player on the boys side with MLSN1. Brilliant chess move on their part

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our club is currently MLSN2 … flying now to ECNL.

So what’s the point of MLS2 now? No pathway to 1 and isn’t a great b team option if the age cutoff doesn’t align with the top team.

They don't have coaches and soccer in MLSN2?

The pathway up for a kid is their skills, performance and potential, not a label.