ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of talk about Q3's here. But if you look at the state requirements to start school DC and Virginia are turns 5 by Sept 30 and DC Sept. 1. All of these would lean to 9/1 (Q4) not 8/1.

Minimum age requirements, not maximum. You are extrapolating the max is one year from min date, but parents are not required to send their 4-year olds to kindergarten just because they met the minimum.

Sure but isn't that the definition of holding your child back, sometimes with good reason based on maturity and other factors. What other metric is better?

Don't argue with repeater parents

Just ignore them like always.

Sorry for your loss.

Stop embarrassing yourself

Sore losing is embarrassing. Sincerely sorry for your loss.

I think you’re reading too much into people’s intentions. I am sure there are some people genuinely not happy with the change, but the fact you see it as winning and losing is an awful reflection on you. I’d bet a cheeseburger that your kid looks at you when they play don’t they?

Not even close.

Agree, leave the kids out of it. They are not cheaters and they are not repeaters. They are kids playing soccer mostly told where to play by the leagues, teams, coaches and parents.

Heck, you shouldn't even be angry at parents that want to stand up for their kids. They don't set the rules.

All anger of birth year going to school year should be directed at youth soccer officials calling the shots, that's it.

All the moronic cheap shots at trapped not existing, cheaters, etc. is pathetic.

When you read all the anger directed at people supporting school year from people disagreeing with the change, all you can see is sore losing.

You make my point. You’re assuming anger instead of opinion.

First, I’ve never seen anyone say playing down is cheating. Nor have I seen anyone say advocating for change that is personally beneficial is cheating. Not sure where you saw that in this thread. Maybe it’s there…there are a lot of posts…but it hasn’t been a common one.

Second, the trapped player phenomenon is definately debatable. If there was some data that Q3/Q4 ECNL players were recruited less often, maybe it would have legs. But that has not been the case with the trapped debate, it’s all about their team graduating earlier, and the trapped player being a step-kid on a team. If the “proof” of recruiting impact is opinion, like “my daughter was destined for UNC, but now she is playing for JMU if not for her being trapped,” I’d tend to put that in the opinion not facts basket. The 8th grade trap does not exist, that’s not debatable. The 8th grade “trap is a weird FOMO thing…the kid isn’t missing high level play, they’re missing “fun time” with HS soccer - the equivalent of off-season indoor with friends. To take a subject that is debatable and assume that people’s opinions are anger directed at you is bit..extra?

Definately been some nastiness and ugly ego (on their children’s behalf) in this thread. And plenty of dumbdumbs thinking the age cut-off makes or breaks their kids soccer future. But anger at other kids or groups of kids I don’t think is common in this thread.

My 2 cents? You need to take a break from this thread if you’re taking everything as a personal attack.

So you can attempt to dish it out but can't take it. Got it.

? Did you read the post? Or are you just sorry for your loss?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ECNL doesn’t make a change to SY after starting this mess, there will be a revolution.

+1 - and if they don’t do it in 9 months vs 18 they similarly will get ire from players and parents. Nobody had the time or patience for a dead year.

No they won’t….they get ire all the time from parents about all sorts of garbage outside their control.

ECNL made this push because a director had this as a passion project due to his son’s outcome being a disappointment for their family. They also did it because GA made moves with self-sanctioning and big expansions the last couple of years. More complaints from the same parents isn’t going to move them any faster than they already intend to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is GA makes no changes whatsoever next year and ECNL allows trapped kids to move.

If only 8th grade trapped players move it puts too many on U14 and not enough on U15. Would have to be all ages.

It would have to be 2011 (Q3/4), 2012,2013s for it to work best. But if they wanted to allow it just for 2011/2012 for a year it’s not a big deal. The kids on the 2012 would just be moved off a year early.

Would affect the 2011s either because 70% of teams are Q 1/2 so would just continue playing one more year against themselves. If players want to change teams some kids may decide to just stay.

We're current Q4 2012's, so we're watching this closely. It didn't dawn on me that they are likely to implement some sort of workaround right away because the years are very limited. 08 and 07 are basically baked at this point. Not sure the 09's are super passionate at this point in their career. It's really the 11's and 12's that are desperate for a fix. Allow a few waivers in those isolated years so we don't screw up another generation and most folks are happy. The 13's are going 11v11 so they need players anyway.

You'd need to figure out which year takes the hit. The 10's or the 09's? Maybe allow fewer transfers as you go up in age. 4 for the 12's, 3 for 11's, 2 for the 10's and 1 for the 09's with wholesale switch in 2026. It's possible to have limited disruption this year and not doom another class of players. If my daughter isn't good enough to make a 2013 because she isn't a top 4 trapped player Im at peace with that.

Unfortunately you aren’t all that about the older years. Those players (08 in particular) are about to enter their recruiting year next Fall and want a fix in place that doesn’t screw them over for the next two years.

This is sort of reap what you sow territory. ECNL said more than once “short term pain for long term gain.” The 2008 kids and 2009 kids are the ones enduring the “pain.” That ECNL was referring to. If it wasn’t them, it would be the current crop of 07s as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

How many? I am not convinced this is a thing that exists at a scale that 2nd team q4 parents think it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

It seem to bother anyone on MLSN to be such a huge deal that they cancel the program. I think it should be for everyone but idk that’s doable. Maybe it is?

The problem is the 26 season. That isn't hanging over mlsn. If your with club A that says your not one of the 3 for the 25 season, your not staying for 26. That's the calculation every family and every club would have to make for 1 year knowing they will lose lots of families for the next year.

This is a parent issue, kids don’t care, they wanna stay on their team with their friends, even if it’s for another year. Clubs know this, and most families are not gonna walk. There’s no guarantee when they do that they’re gonna get playing time or the team they want Clubs know this too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ECNL doesn’t make a change to SY after starting this mess, there will be a revolution.

+1 - and if they don’t do it in 9 months vs 18 they similarly will get ire from players and parents. Nobody had the time or patience for a dead year.

No they won’t….they get ire all the time from parents about all sorts of garbage outside their control.

ECNL made this push because a director had this as a passion project due to his son’s outcome being a disappointment for their family. They also did it because GA made moves with self-sanctioning and big expansions the last couple of years. More complaints from the same parents isn’t going to move them any faster than they already intend to move.

Absolutely my favorite part of this thread. The inside scoop on the psychology of each decision. The peek inside what ECNL was thinking every step of the way and the motivation behind every move. No need for public statements when we get a front row seat to what everyone is thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

It seem to bother anyone on MLSN to be such a huge deal that they cancel the program. I think it should be for everyone but idk that’s doable. Maybe it is?

The problem is the 26 season. That isn't hanging over mlsn. If your with club A that says your not one of the 3 for the 25 season, your not staying for 26. That's the calculation every family and every club would have to make for 1 year knowing they will lose lots of families for the next year.

This is a parent issue, kids don’t care, they wanna stay on their team with their friends, even if it’s for another year. Clubs know this, and most families are not gonna walk. There’s no guarantee when they do that they’re gonna get playing time or the team they want Clubs know this too.

If that were true there wouldn't be as much movement between clubs every year as there is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

It seem to bother anyone on MLSN to be such a huge deal that they cancel the program. I think it should be for everyone but idk that’s doable. Maybe it is?

The problem is the 26 season. That isn't hanging over mlsn. If your with club A that says your not one of the 3 for the 25 season, your not staying for 26. That's the calculation every family and every club would have to make for 1 year knowing they will lose lots of families for the next year.

This is a parent issue, kids don’t care, they wanna stay on their team with their friends, even if it’s for another year. Clubs know this, and most families are not gonna walk. There’s no guarantee when they do that they’re gonna get playing time or the team they want Clubs know this too.

Ahhh, the remaining hope of the BY crowd. Maybe things won't change too much. Maybe kids would rather play with their friends than be a star on a top team. Maybe ECNL won't allow moves and parents won't revolt. Maybe...maybe...maybe. Keep hope alive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

It seem to bother anyone on MLSN to be such a huge deal that they cancel the program. I think it should be for everyone but idk that’s doable. Maybe it is?

The problem is the 26 season. That isn't hanging over mlsn. If your with club A that says your not one of the 3 for the 25 season, your not staying for 26. That's the calculation every family and every club would have to make for 1 year knowing they will lose lots of families for the next year.

This is a parent issue, kids don’t care, they wanna stay on their team with their friends, even if it’s for another year. Clubs know this, and most families are not gonna walk. There’s no guarantee when they do that they’re gonna get playing time or the team they want Clubs know this too.

If that were true there wouldn't be as much movement between clubs every year as there is.

There isn’t that much movement. 😂

This is like the “same car phenomenon.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ECNL doesn’t make a change to SY after starting this mess, there will be a revolution.

+1 - and if they don’t do it in 9 months vs 18 they similarly will get ire from players and parents. Nobody had the time or patience for a dead year.

No they won’t….they get ire all the time from parents about all sorts of garbage outside their control.

ECNL made this push because a director had this as a passion project due to his son’s outcome being a disappointment for their family. They also did it because GA made moves with self-sanctioning and big expansions the last couple of years. More complaints from the same parents isn’t going to move them any faster than they already intend to move.

Absolutely my favorite part of this thread. The inside scoop on the psychology of each decision. The peek inside what ECNL was thinking every step of the way and the motivation behind every move. No need for public statements when we get a front row seat to what everyone is thinking.

Gotta fill the vacuum ECNL left with their lack of accountability and lack of forthrightness…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No change for the 2025-2026 season. There should be no registration change for the 2025-2026 season. This allows organizations transitioning to school year calendars to prepare their operations and provide the best experience for all participants. The recommendation is based on overwhelming feedback from the engagement process.

• U.S. Soccer will formally approve the implementation process in the coming weeks following feedback from members and stakeholders on a draft version of the plan. We anticipate these next steps will conclude by the 2025 AGM (2/27/2025-3/2/2025) and be communicated to the ecosystem immediately after.

MLSN currently allows three biobanding players to play down a year. It will be OK if ECNL allows 3 Q3/Q4 players to play in their grade.

If it was really to prepare for the change it would need to be more than 3.

It’s better than nothing and still not trying mix things up in a large way. Obviously parents will want more or less but it still will help push things in the direction ECNL is going.

Obviously they can do whatever they want at this point but feel like it would be a reasonable compromise.

3 will create a lot of animosity and movement. The politics around who moves now and who moves later will be insane.

There is always animosity in club soccer especially ECNL level. But MLSN seems to be doing okay with biobanding which is the same thing essentially.

If ECNL said each team gets 3 then it’s up to the players and clubs to decide who should take those spots and who should continue playing with their age group.

That alienates entirely too many Q4's on 2nd teams (at that club or another) that are better than the year younger top teams.

It seem to bother anyone on MLSN to be such a huge deal that they cancel the program. I think it should be for everyone but idk that’s doable. Maybe it is?

The problem is the 26 season. That isn't hanging over mlsn. If your with club A that says your not one of the 3 for the 25 season, your not staying for 26. That's the calculation every family and every club would have to make for 1 year knowing they will lose lots of families for the next year.

This is a parent issue, kids don’t care, they wanna stay on their team with their friends, even if it’s for another year. Clubs know this, and most families are not gonna walk. There’s no guarantee when they do that they’re gonna get playing time or the team they want Clubs know this too.

Ahhh, the remaining hope of the BY crowd. Maybe things won't change too much. Maybe kids would rather play with their friends than be a star on a top team. Maybe ECNL won't allow moves and parents won't revolt. Maybe...maybe...maybe. Keep hope alive!

??? You’re putting way too much of your own opinion of what others think into what others say. I’m not a BYer and don’t care about the movement etc, it doesn’t affect my player at all.

But if I had a nickel for every time a parent said they were going to move their kid because of this issue or that issue, but didn’t, I’d be a billionaire. And not a single time I’ve ever heard a parent say they were going to move a kid did the kid want to move. It is seldom a player issue and almost always a parent issue.

The main exceptions to this is kids on the YNT who moved for very specific reasons to clubs outside the geography.

[Anonymous]

Way too many pages to read but has a decision been made regarding birth year and school year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Way too many pages to read but has a decision been made regarding birth year and school year?

yes, ECNL will be announcing shortly that they are moving to SY in 2025. buckle up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way too many pages to read but has a decision been made regarding birth year and school year?

yes, ECNL will be announcing shortly that they are moving to SY in 2025. buckle up

If it hasn’t been announced how do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If ECNL doesn’t make a change to SY after starting this mess, there will be a revolution.

+1 - and if they don’t do it in 9 months vs 18 they similarly will get ire from players and parents. Nobody had the time or patience for a dead year.

No they won’t….they get ire all the time from parents about all sorts of garbage outside their control.

ECNL made this push because a director had this as a passion project due to his son’s outcome being a disappointment for their family. They also did it because GA made moves with self-sanctioning and big expansions the last couple of years. More complaints from the same parents isn’t going to move them any faster than they already intend to move.

Absolutely my favorite part of this thread. The inside scoop on the psychology of each decision. The peek inside what ECNL was thinking every step of the way and the motivation behind every move. No need for public statements when we get a front row seat to what everyone is thinking.

Gotta fill the vacuum ECNL left with their lack of accountability and lack of forthrightness…

Not defending ECNL but they haven't made a change so nothing to explain. And they did make there positions pretty well known on the podcasts.