ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

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.

This is the American mindset…and why it fails.

They’re not “side sporting” at La Masia. But what do they know…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that is where bullet point 3 comes in….i knew someone would post this. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

This is the American mindset…and why it fails.

They’re not “side sporting” at La Masia. But what do they know…

Want your kid to be a Roger or a Tiger? https://adaniabutto.medium.com/tiger-woods-versus-roger-federer-bf96d7d1d957

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Similarly, they didn’t mandate change definitively for the 26/27 year - -in fact there is flexibility for members based on needs and the area/state to choose as they wish. But it seems what some clubs are already communicating to their members is consistent with what was released: no change next year and possible change in 26/27 still tbd.

[Anonymous]

My .02 says proceed when ready but you wont be forced to until 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My .02 says proceed when ready but you wont be forced to until 26.

The point is they’re not forcing anyone to change or stay. Just that nobody changes in 25/26

[Anonymous]

If ecnl wants to change (as they clearly do) and they’re not precluded from doing so (as they’re clearly not, at least under the existing communication), why would they wait? Even ecnl players and parents who don’t like the change surely would prefer to see it happen sooner than later once they know for sure it is coming one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

My buddy is the director of my son’s ECNL club. He said he reached out to ECNL directly to confirm what we are all arguing about because the information released does not explicitly say NO for Fall 25. He said ECNL has not returned his email and he is waiting for a response.

[Anonymous]

Haha.... We all know what that means. Expect big changes soon.

[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.

It's not just pay for play. It's money and pro prospects too. Baseball, basketball, hockey, NFL all offer much bigger financial opportunities at the pro level, and even college for the revenue sports like football, basketball and baseball. We can call out pay for play all we want, but it's only one small part of the equation for the top level athletes in the US.

[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.

Not wanting pay to play is like saying I want the government to pay. But the opposite has been happening. With no pay to play there would only be young kid rec soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not just pay for play. It's money and pro prospects too. Baseball, basketball, hockey, NFL all offer much bigger financial opportunities at the pro level, and even college for the revenue sports like football, basketball and baseball. We can call out pay for play all we want, but it's only one small part of the equation for the top level athletes in the US.

Such nonsense

Top players here are like top players in every other country.
You go to the leagues (in Europe) to realize your Pro dreams.

So there not being 'top' Pro opportunities here isn't why our youth system is lacking.

[Anonymous]

How does one start testing out SY rosters next fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If ecnl wants to change (as they clearly do) and they’re not precluded from doing so (as they’re clearly not, at least under the existing communication), why would they wait? Even ecnl players and parents who don’t like the change surely would prefer to see it happen sooner than later once they know for sure it is coming one way or the other.

The ‘why’ for no change in registration in the next year is in the US Soccer communication as well.