ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two out of 6 ECNL teams at every club every year have to shuffle rosters to accommodate trapped players. U18 for seniors that don’t have a team anymore and U14 for 8th graders whose season ends so the rest of their team can play HS soccer. This age change will happen once but means 1/3 of ECNL National teams won’t have to accommodate changes every year anymore

Most downloaded ECNL podcast to date loading….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Until the unfortunate reality hits that the difference of a few months in age alone does’t change anything to get on some of these teams and talent actually matters.

Good point. Lets keep letting your kid play a grade down so they can feel good about their participation trophy and believe they're getting a scholarship. The minute my daughter is allowed on the field with her classmates it'll be clear how much a few months matters. Depending on age there aren't as many Q4 kids but they are absolutely going to obsolete your child. Talent does matter, your right, lol.

There are actually some teams with no trapped players so yes, talent and competitive experience, rather than age, is always going to matter more than many realize.

🤣🤣🤣what a team with no trapped players means they all skew to the older age of age bracket. That's the opposite of claiming its talent and not age.

I get coming to that conclusion, but it’s a logical leap without knowing the specifics of the player pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Until the unfortunate reality hits that the difference of a few months in age alone does’t change anything to get on some of these teams and talent actually matters.

Good point. Lets keep letting your kid play a grade down so they can feel good about their participation trophy and believe they're getting a scholarship. The minute my daughter is allowed on the field with her classmates it'll be clear how much a few months matters. Depending on age there aren't as many Q4 kids but they are absolutely going to obsolete your child. Talent does matter, your right, lol.

There are actually some teams with no trapped players so yes, talent and competitive experience, rather than age, is always going to matter more than many realize.

🤣🤣🤣what a team with no trapped players means they all skew to the older age of age bracket. That's the opposite of claiming its talent and not age.

I get coming to that conclusion, but it’s a logical leap without knowing the specifics of the player pool.

All things being equal, the bigger pool of players a team can pick from, the more likely their top team is going to lean towards older players. So maybe more movement at bigger clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:US soccer cannot stop failing. It's impressive actually how poor soccer is run in this country, top to bottom.

100% spot on. They cannot get out of their own way. Too many opinions, not enough vision.

If you want to really build US soccer, you take grass roots and state associations and make them SY - mandated.

You take any national league and allow them to be SY up to 14yo. Any national league 15 and up needs to be BY to align with international standards / NT / Professional ranks etc.

What they did was make no decision and left it up to the leagues - which means it will become a cycle of Daddy-Coach / Complaining parents having more influence.

I was having drinks last month with a NT scout and talking shop and he is convinced that all the gains the US has made on the men’s side are going to go down the tubes soon, and the women’s side won’t win another WC - not because of the age change per say, but because the US lacks the fortitude to have a vision, stick to it, and build long term. The collegiate system is one issue that causes this, but it’s also the way US soccer lacks the professionalism that its international counterparts have. Yes, big country problems, but not insurmountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Until the unfortunate reality hits that the difference of a few months in age alone does’t change anything to get on some of these teams and talent actually matters.

Good point. Lets keep letting your kid play a grade down so they can feel good about their participation trophy and believe they're getting a scholarship. The minute my daughter is allowed on the field with her classmates it'll be clear how much a few months matters. Depending on age there aren't as many Q4 kids but they are absolutely going to obsolete your child. Talent does matter, your right, lol.

There are actually some teams with no trapped players so yes, talent and competitive experience, rather than age, is always going to matter more than many realize.

🤣🤣🤣what a team with no trapped players means they all skew to the older age of age bracket. That's the opposite of claiming its talent and not age.

I get coming to that conclusion, but it’s a logical leap without knowing the specifics of the player pool.

All things being equal, the bigger pool of players a team can pick from, the more likely their top team is going to lean towards older players. So maybe more movement at bigger clubs.

Maybe? At what age? 13 is very different than 16.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Until the unfortunate reality hits that the difference of a few months in age alone does’t change anything to get on some of these teams and talent actually matters.

Good point. Lets keep letting your kid play a grade down so they can feel good about their participation trophy and believe they're getting a scholarship. The minute my daughter is allowed on the field with her classmates it'll be clear how much a few months matters. Depending on age there aren't as many Q4 kids but they are absolutely going to obsolete your child. Talent does matter, your right, lol.

There are actually some teams with no trapped players so yes, talent and competitive experience, rather than age, is always going to matter more than many realize.

🤣🤣🤣what a team with no trapped players means they all skew to the older age of age bracket. That's the opposite of claiming its talent and not age.

I get coming to that conclusion, but it’s a logical leap without knowing the specifics of the player pool.

All things being equal, the bigger pool of players a team can pick from, the more likely their top team is going to lean towards older players. So maybe more movement at bigger clubs.

Maybe? At what age? 13 is very different than 16.

I think at least for U-littles this is true. Zooms out for a second and imagine if you take every kids from 6-13 and sort them in terms of their soccer ability, that sort will be roughly in order of age right. Like the best will be 13 and the worst will be 6. So it makes sense if you have a ton of kids, that will still be true even within the same year age. Obviously there will be standouts who are wildly out of order and those are the kids that will end up on national teams, but this will roughly be true. My kid plays in a giant club pre-ecnl and you can take the kids on the top two teams in his age group and sort them by either height or birthday and drop a line down the middle and you’d end up with A and B teams almost perfectly with only a couple exceptions. There’s only one Q3/Q4 kid on A and there’s literally 6 on B.

As puberty sets in this will likely all even I’ve. I’ve seen that already with my older kids, but at U9-U12 it’s a pretty big deal. I’m not convinced it’s bad btw, it just is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

no it is not

RLs bumping up will be a rare sight. You just can’t make up the delta in dedication and match experience between RL and NL.

In theory there is supposed to be fluidity in the ECNL “pool” for clubs - but it isn’t fluid after u13 because the amount of time on ball is significantly different between RL and NL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US soccer cannot stop failing. It's impressive actually how poor soccer is run in this country, top to bottom.

100% spot on. They cannot get out of their own way. Too many opinions, not enough vision.

If you want to really build US soccer, you take grass roots and state associations and make them SY - mandated.

You take any national league and allow them to be SY up to 14yo. Any national league 15 and up needs to be BY to align with international standards / NT / Professional ranks etc.

What they did was make no decision and left it up to the leagues - which means it will become a cycle of Daddy-Coach / Complaining parents having more influence.

I was having drinks last month with a NT scout and talking shop and he is convinced that all the gains the US has made on the men’s side are going to go down the tubes soon, and the women’s side won’t win another WC - not because of the age change per say, but because the US lacks the fortitude to have a vision, stick to it, and build long term. The collegiate system is one issue that causes this, but it’s also the way US soccer lacks the professionalism that its international counterparts have. Yes, big country problems, but not insurmountable.

I would say the biggest thing holding our men back, and now impacting our women, is the pay for play model. I do not see it going away in the foreseeable future, but the fact is too many terrific athletes never give soccer (or any other pay for play sport) a chance because the economic hurdles are either not worth the gamble or are too expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

no it is not

RLs bumping up will be a rare sight. You just can’t make up the delta in dedication and match experience between RL and NL.

In theory there is supposed to be fluidity in the ECNL “pool” for clubs - but it isn’t fluid after u13 because the amount of time on ball is significantly different between RL and NL

It absolutely is. 😂

Typically 1 more practice per week, 10 +/- more matches per season. 1 more showcase…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US soccer cannot stop failing. It's impressive actually how poor soccer is run in this country, top to bottom.

100% spot on. They cannot get out of their own way. Too many opinions, not enough vision.

If you want to really build US soccer, you take grass roots and state associations and make them SY - mandated.

You take any national league and allow them to be SY up to 14yo. Any national league 15 and up needs to be BY to align with international standards / NT / Professional ranks etc.

What they did was make no decision and left it up to the leagues - which means it will become a cycle of Daddy-Coach / Complaining parents having more influence.

I was having drinks last month with a NT scout and talking shop and he is convinced that all the gains the US has made on the men’s side are going to go down the tubes soon, and the women’s side won’t win another WC - not because of the age change per say, but because the US lacks the fortitude to have a vision, stick to it, and build long term. The collegiate system is one issue that causes this, but it’s also the way US soccer lacks the professionalism that its international counterparts have. Yes, big country problems, but not insurmountable.

I would say the biggest thing holding our men back, and now impacting our women, is the pay for play model. I do not see it going away in the foreseeable future, but the fact is too many terrific athletes never give soccer (or any other pay for play sport) a chance because the economic hurdles are either not worth the gamble or are too expensive.

I appreciate the opinion. I disagree though, I think that’s a counter factual, with so many variables that make it a less likely driver than a number of other simpler reasons, such as our pyramid being a non-functional, or our collegiate pathway short circuiting our pathway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

What?!?! Read it again Einstein or maybe have someone smarter read it for you and explain it to you. They didn't even say clubs couldn't adopt SY for the 25/26 season. They simply "recommended" for teams not to implement it until 26/27. Clearly, you are seeing what you want to see instead of actually reading the document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

What?!?! Read it again Einstein or maybe have someone smarter read it for you and explain it to you. They didn't even say clubs couldn't adopt SY for the 25/26 season. They simply "recommended" for teams not to implement it until 26/27. Clearly, you are seeing what you want to see instead of actually reading the document.

Not PP, but maybe you should re-read it yourself? Page 2 is explicit. Second bullet point is a good place for you Magoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That's a bit excessive. Most top teams don't have 6 Q3/Q4 kids in total, not to say their best 6 players are all Q3/Q4. Likely impact is 2-3 solid starters/ impact subs from top team, 4-5 top RL players as competitive squad options and 3-4 kids from outside the club. Obviously a lot to be nervous about for borderline starters and bubble players.

no it is not

RLs bumping up will be a rare sight. You just can’t make up the delta in dedication and match experience between RL and NL.

In theory there is supposed to be fluidity in the ECNL “pool” for clubs - but it isn’t fluid after u13 because the amount of time on ball is significantly different between RL and NL

It absolutely is. 😂

Typically 1 more practice per week, 10 +/- more matches per season. 1 more showcase…

Idk, if the RL players have a good side donor sport like basketball/lacrosse/field hockey/swimming/cross country, they should be more than fine. And there are what, about 3 times as many RL players as NL so if the top say 2 RL trapped players from each team go up to NL that would affect 6 current NL players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

What?!?! Read it again Einstein or maybe have someone smarter read it for you and explain it to you. They didn't even say clubs couldn't adopt SY for the 25/26 season. They simply "recommended" for teams not to implement it until 26/27. Clearly, you are seeing what you want to see instead of actually reading the document.

Not PP, but maybe you should re-read it yourself? Page 2 is explicit. Second bullet point is a good place for you Magoo.

Different person. But page 2 bullet point two definitely reads. “The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process”.

Not saying they are changing I have no idea but it’s interesting they didn’t say this mandate or use stronger verbiage to deter leagues from adopting early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the decision to allow each club to decide for themselves is a total cop-out and demonstrates a lack of leadership. It's every player/club for themselves, and it's crap

Ok but this was not the decision. To be clear they did not say next year you can determine for yourself. They said next year we will consider that. This is still open for no change in 26/27. All the rest are just words until that decision a year or so from now.

What?!?! Read it again Einstein or maybe have someone smarter read it for you and explain it to you. They didn't even say clubs couldn't adopt SY for the 25/26 season. They simply "recommended" for teams not to implement it until 26/27. Clearly, you are seeing what you want to see instead of actually reading the document.

Not PP, but maybe you should re-read it yourself? Page 2 is explicit. Second bullet point is a good place for you Magoo.

It says there should be no registration change for the 25/26 season. Also says in that same paragraph this is a recommendation.