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: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.

Anecdotal? Your club? Where is the data?

Q4 is the lowest quarter of births. The distribution of Q4 is going to be low on any team.

The larger point is you’re assuming that Q4 2nd team is first team quality if not for the age cutoff. I think that is an assumption that doesn’t have much foundation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

ECNL has nothing to do with HS soccer…why do people keep trotting out the 8th grade issue like it’s a grand injustice.

The lower grade players on a club team still get 4 years of HS soccer if they want to play HS soccer…they just don’t get it at the same time the 9th graders on their club team are able to play HS soccer. If you’re on an NPL or classic team, sure maybe those awful but extra touches are helpful. But if you’re playing ECNL (and your ECNL club allows you to play HS soccer…which many do not) then HS soccer reps are bad reps, and the 8th grader that is making up for it by playing in club, or grinding with a trainer will be 1000x better off.

[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.

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.

Anecdotal? Your club? Where is the data?

Q4 is the lowest quarter of births. The distribution of Q4 is going to be low on any team.

The larger point is you’re assuming that Q4 2nd team is first team quality if not for the age cutoff. I think that is an assumption that doesn’t have much foundation.

Well we are about to find out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This entire thread started with “imminent announcements coming from ECNL” - of which none came.

And here we are…with same gambit continuing…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This entire thread started with “imminent announcements coming from ECNL” - of which none came.

And here we are…with same gambit continuing…

Yup, I’m sure you’re right, and your Q1/Q2 kid has nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ECNL tryout is every week. My son joined the ECNL team in the middle of the season. If ECNL gives waiver to trap players to play down in their grade, you will see a lot of outside kids doing tryout during team practice. That is what scares the shit out of the Q1/Q2 parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This entire thread started with “imminent announcements coming from ECNL” - of which none came.

And here we are…with same gambit continuing…

Yup, I’m sure you’re right, and your Q1/Q2 kid has nothing to worry about.

🙄 I don’t have a Q1/2 kid. Why do all of you SY-ride-or-die crazies think anyone who points out the amount of cheap fortune-teller ominous but vague magic 8 ball blather you all spout is a BY fan or a Q1/2 parent?

You all are legit unhinged. “ECNL will make announcement before February” “ECNL will go alone, my friends cousin, who is neighbors with the uncle of a ECNL team’s webmaster gave me the inside scoop” “the Q4 RL player will all be starters on the NL top team in the Fall, teams are already making the moves”

All most people want is the facts. So they can deal with the change and move on. Regardless of your kid’s roster spot, birth month, team, etc, the wishcasting (and hexcasting, esp on Q1 KIDS!!! - they are still just fing kids) that is being stated as fact just dumb. I would be 30-40% of the posts in this thread are correcting the BS “wishes stated as facts.” The rest of it is some genuine debate over opinions, best guesses, thoughts on youth soccer in general, and griping. But you guys have made this thread intermittently suck more often than necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ECNL tryout is every week. My son joined the ECNL team in the middle of the season. If ECNL gives waiver to trap players to play down in their grade, you will see a lot of outside kids doing tryout during team practice. That is what scares the shit out of the Q1/Q2 parents.

No….that is what scares the shit out of bubble kid’s parents. Kids not on the bubble don’t worry about outside players. Outside players don’t have to be as good, they have to be better than someone ok the team…that’s where the bubble kids sweat.

Age cutoffs won’t change existing team ranks. When things shuffle up in 26/27 - the bubbles go into team changes on the bubble. You’ll see bubbles of ANY birth month be more likely to be bounced down a tier. You’ll see top kids move between two top teams depending on cutoffs and abilities, but they’re not getting bounced down a tier. And the middle ranked kids might be at risk of some bouncing a tier, but more likely than not they stay middle or end up on the bubble of a top team.

Fantasy land where kids that are not as good are all of a sudden ballers because of an age cutoff change 2 years in the future is straight out of lala land.

[Anonymous]

ECNL goes to grad year we all hold are kids back it’s like 25/26 season never happened.

[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.

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.

?
But there are ECNL clubs that have only 1 team per age group.

[Anonymous]

One ECNL and two ECRL teams…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
?
But there are ECNL clubs that have only 1 team per age group.

There is an ECRL team paired with that ECNL team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?
But there are ECNL clubs that have only 1 team per age group.

There is an ECRL team paired with that ECNL team.

Given all the alliances, there is anywhere from 1-3 teams paired up with ecnl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
?
But there are ECNL clubs that have only 1 team per age group.

There is an ECRL team paired with that ECNL team.

Given all the alliances, there is anywhere from 1-3 teams paired up with ecnl

So now the argument isn’t that the “2nd team” is the repository for Q4 players, and they’re all primed to take the roster spots of the first team. But rather “the entire recruiting pool that didn’t make the cut.”

😂

We can call that the “magic wand” theory.

[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.

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.

Anecdotal? Your club? Where is the data?

Q4 is the lowest quarter of births. The distribution of Q4 is going to be low on any team.

The larger point is you’re assuming that Q4 2nd team is first team quality if not for the age cutoff. I think that is an assumption that doesn’t have much foundation.

Just my personal experience of things in my area as someone who has kids be apart of this BY era and I've seen others share that observation in discussing this issue. Not assuming anything about quality. Wouldn't surprise me to see 2nd team Q4 players end up on the 2nd team of the new age range they are apart of OR see some of those make it on the 1st team OR perhaps my biggest concern: just quit because they are being forced onto a new team and play with less experienced players.

I think the rah-rah people here for the change are a bit to enamored with the short-term gains for some, especially overly competitive clubs and their reputations. Those would pale vs. the negative aspects of the disruption the change will cause if not handled well.