ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I understand the point you’re making, but agree to disagree on their podcast being tantamount to making their positions clear.

[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

JFC. They are not doing anything. Otherwise all of the Ecnl clubs would not have made the announcements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

JFC. They are not doing anything. Otherwise all of the Ecnl clubs would not have made the announcements.



They haven’t said anything. No one knows

[Anonymous]

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

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No.

Well that's a lazy answer. League options in 26 no more mandate. Debate on if there can be changes in 25. Reading between the lines people come to differing conclusions. And the optimistic BY folks think the flexibility in 26 really means no change.

[Anonymous]

We’ve got to buckle down and produce a few more pages tonight or we’re never going to hit 400 before the weekend ends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No.

Well that's a lazy answer. League options in 26 no more mandate. Debate on if there can be changes in 25. Reading between the lines people come to differing conclusions. And the optimistic BY folks think the flexibility in 26 really means no change.

You’re just making shtuff up and throwing “optimistic BY folks” in there to be extra turdy. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

If there is no change on 25/26, ECNL should already make an announcement like what DPL did.

I would bet 90% chance ECNL will make a change soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there is no change on 25/26, ECNL should already make an announcement like what DPL did.

I would bet 90% chance ECNL will make a change soon.

Orrrrrr, counter point, since there is no change, as said by USSF, there is no need for an announcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is no change on 25/26, ECNL should already make an announcement like what DPL did.

I would bet 90% chance ECNL will make a change soon.

Orrrrrr, counter point, since there is no change, as said by USSF, there is no need for an announcement?

Yes. There is nothing to announce. As I said above, ecnl would not have let all the Ecnl clubs go out to their parents/players saying nothing changes if Ecnl was going to make a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’ve got to buckle down and produce a few more pages tonight or we’re never going to hit 400 before the weekend ends.

Maybe not 400, but 371 just moved this tread ahead of TalkingSoccer.com's 370!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is no change on 25/26, ECNL should already make an announcement like what DPL did.

I would bet 90% chance ECNL will make a change soon.

Orrrrrr, counter point, since there is no change, as said by USSF, there is no need for an announcement?

Yes. There is nothing to announce. As I said above, ecnl would not have let all the Ecnl clubs go out to their parents/players saying nothing changes if Ecnl was going to make a change.

Just wait and see. Should come before the end of Feb.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

2nd teams often are the ones who have most of the Q4 players.

[Anonymous]

I just don’t see ECNL doing as much as some people hope they will do. I could see them addressing the trapped player problem in some way for next year’s crop of 8th graders but even that’s a long shot.

I will say I’ve seen this posted everywhere but have not seen US club or ECNL post the announcement plan that came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is no change on 25/26, ECNL should already make an announcement like what DPL did.

I would bet 90% chance ECNL will make a change soon.

Orrrrrr, counter point, since there is no change, as said by USSF, there is no need for an announcement?

Yes. There is nothing to announce. As I said above, ecnl would not have let all the Ecnl clubs go out to their parents/players saying nothing changes if Ecnl was going to make a change.

Just wait and see. Should come before the end of Feb.

Some clubs tryouts are already beginning. SoCAL clubs tryouts begin this week. Looks like they are proceeding with no changes as communicated.