ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

To step up as a responsible organization for youth soccer development, ECNL should change to grade year and allow certain number of bio-banding. You will develop more future soccer stars for sure by doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the decision on this being made? I'm shocked it is not a bigger conversation. its not only ECNL, USYS is looking at this too which impacts a lot more kids.
Absurd that they went to birth year in the first place, which is what everyone said at the time. No matter what, you have twelve months' of birthdays. Someone is going to be younger and in terms of size and physical maturity, generally those younger kids will be disadvantaged whether it's the last quarter of the year or May through July if they revert to the old system.
This is like them saying publicly, "We have no idea what we are dong here, but we are in charge so you have to deal with it."

As of now no discussion is being had about the Change. It has not been a topic of discussion for a while. They have talked about with US soccer but if US soccer says no then the answer is not happening.

That’s from the ECNL commissioner.

Well, there are technically 3 commissioners in ECNL (at least).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the decision on this being made? I'm shocked it is not a bigger conversation. its not only ECNL, USYS is looking at this too which impacts a lot more kids.
Absurd that they went to birth year in the first place, which is what everyone said at the time. No matter what, you have twelve months' of birthdays. Someone is going to be younger and in terms of size and physical maturity, generally those younger kids will be disadvantaged whether it's the last quarter of the year or May through July if they revert to the old system.
This is like them saying publicly, "We have no idea what we are dong here, but we are in charge so you have to deal with it."

As of now no discussion is being had about the Change. It has not been a topic of discussion for a while. They have talked about with US soccer but if US soccer says no then the answer is not happening.

That’s from the ECNL commissioner.

Well, there are technically 3 commissioners in ECNL (at least).

You’re correct. I would assume they are all on the same page and have all the same info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To step up as a responsible organization for youth soccer development, ECNL should change to grade year and allow certain number of bio-banding. You will develop more future soccer stars for sure by doing this.

ECNL needs US soccer for that decision. Adding bio banding as it is currently set up doesn’t sound like something they are interested in. I only say that because the president of ECNL also said that. Doesn’t mean they can’t create their own rules for something similar to bio banding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To step up as a responsible organization for youth soccer development, ECNL should change to grade year and allow certain number of bio-banding. You will develop more future soccer stars for sure by doing this.

Exactly how does that create future stars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is in the same boat. He’s a day too old to play with his classmates. I wish I could request a waiver for him and that his club would honor that waiver if we asked to play him down.

Literally 1 day - he’s ecnl he fights hard but plays bench minutes as he’s small compared to all the other kids. And with the larger rosters I am doubting he will even get rostered.

He should be focused on improving his technical skills and knowledge of the game.
Also working on his coordination, balance etc

That levels the playing field.

According to RAE science and studies, this will not level the playing field.

Cursed at birth basically. I say they should instead take up the arts, where they won’t be limited by genetics and the uncontrollable fickle “eye test” and subjective third party opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To step up as a responsible organization for youth soccer development, ECNL should change to grade year and allow certain number of bio-banding. You will develop more future soccer stars for sure by doing this.

Because ECNL is supposed to take on US Soccer’s mandate?

Dude, ECNL is a platform for getting the middle 68.3% of top competitive soccer players into college by using athletics as their “spike.” Don’t overthink the mission.

Your ECNL club sucks at soccer overall, so does the other one down the street, and the one across the country. These are kids, playing a sport at an high amateur level and 98%+ of them are on an amateur pathway.

Everyone is paying for the platform so college coaches can swipe left or right on your kid at a handful of showcases annually.

Yes, ECNL has some stars, especially in the women’s side. And you can probably name every single one of them…making them what? The 0.05% of the pool each from a given year?

ECNL, GA, even MLS Next are not in the “star making” business. You and your kid may be! Read about Messi. Newell wasn’t in the “star making” either, Messi and has dad were though! Even Barca wasn’t fully onboard until Real Madrid got into the discussion with the Messi’s (just to screw with Barca).

Read about Son, he and his dad were in the “star making” business.

Read about whoever it is. Clubs don’t care about you, your kid, your kid’s future. An individual coach might, sure. Nobody is going to do the heavy lifting to “develop more future stars”, that is an investment that doesn’t pencil for anyone EXCEPT the athlete themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son is in the same boat. He’s a day too old to play with his classmates. I wish I could request a waiver for him and that his club would honor that waiver if we asked to play him down.

Literally 1 day - he’s ecnl he fights hard but plays bench minutes as he’s small compared to all the other kids. And with the larger rosters I am doubting he will even get rostered.

New Years baby? That’s not a trapped player. That is the player that the “trapped parents” hate one.

Also ECNL is not about “playing with your friends.”

[Anonymous]

The purpose of this thread was is ECNL changing age groups. And the answer is not right now. We can all argue why things should or should not change. But ECNL won’t change anything and the purpose of the podcast was just entertainment and insight not a call to action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There appears to be a bright side to being a trapped player. (It is outlined in another thread...(My Kid Committed to D1, Ask me Anything) And that is, trapped players can get a big leg up on committing to a University their summer of their Junior Year. They get to absorb all the knowledge of deciding on a college pathway a year earlier than their grade level cohorts, who are playing a year down by birth year. A trapped player might be disadvantaged initially, but there is a big upside and you can jump the line in the college application process in some categories relating to experience and actual process.

Life isn't fair, but some players have figured out a way to capitalize on being a trapped player.

There is literally no benefit to trapped players. Outside of 10% of kids who are born later in the year and are just freak athletes who can overcome. This hurts 90% of kids not Q3/4. It also disrupts teams at U19. It’s just not a good system. But yes complaining doesn’t help either have to play with the cards you are dealt.

Resilience is a scam, https://hbr.org/2023/03/resilient-isnt-the-compliment-you-think-it- and is an excuse for those that treat people crappy, isn't not my fault, and you should thank me.

https://hbr.org/2023/03/resilient-isnt-the-compliment-you-think-it-is

Did you read the “thought piece” article you linked? It’s a semantical game thought piece: “resilience” of just taking crap endlessly and trudging along isn’t the right kind of “resilience.” I don’t think anyone thinks of suffering without taking action as resilience, particularly not in athletics.

But hey, you and your family do you. If you believe “if you don’t have it perfectly when you first try, it isn’t worth doing”, by all means, carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The purpose of this thread was is ECNL changing age groups. And the answer is not right now. We can all argue why things should or should not change. But ECNL won’t change anything and the purpose of the podcast was just entertainment and insight not a call to action.

That’s how the thread started, sure. Off a rando tweet.

But it’s become so so much more. Come for the tea, stay for the drama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The purpose of this thread was is ECNL changing age groups. And the answer is not right now. We can all argue why things should or should not change. But ECNL won’t change anything and the purpose of the podcast was just entertainment and insight not a call to action.

That’s how the thread started, sure. Off a rando tweet.

But it’s become so so much more. Come for the tea, stay for the drama.

The change is a very strong possibility. Not a done deal yet. Momentum is moving in that direction and more conversations will start taking place in the next week or so with a decision being finalized by November.

[Anonymous]

ECNL should do grade year and allow bio-banding. This will provide the most competitive environment and reduce friction when they go to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The purpose of this thread was is ECNL changing age groups. And the answer is not right now. We can all argue why things should or should not change. But ECNL won’t change anything and the purpose of the podcast was just entertainment and insight not a call to action.

That’s how the thread started, sure. Off a rando tweet.

But it’s become so so much more. Come for the tea, stay for the drama.

The change is a very strong possibility. Not a done deal yet. Momentum is moving in that direction and more conversations will start taking place in the next week or so with a decision being finalized by November.

Strong possibility according to whom? Point to one reliable publicly verifiable source saying it’s “a strong possibility”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To step up as a responsible organization for youth soccer development, ECNL should change to grade year and allow certain number of bio-banding. You will develop more future soccer stars for sure by doing this.

Because ECNL is supposed to take on US Soccer’s mandate?

Dude, ECNL is a platform for getting the middle 68.3% of top competitive soccer players into college by using athletics as their “spike.” Don’t overthink the mission.

Your ECNL club sucks at soccer overall, so does the other one down the street, and the one across the country. These are kids, playing a sport at an high amateur level and 98%+ of them are on an amateur pathway.

Everyone is paying for the platform so college coaches can swipe left or right on your kid at a handful of showcases annually.

Yes, ECNL has some stars, especially in the women’s side. And you can probably name every single one of them…making them what? The 0.05% of the pool each from a given year?

ECNL, GA, even MLS Next are not in the “star making” business. You and your kid may be! Read about Messi. Newell wasn’t in the “star making” either, Messi and has dad were though! Even Barca wasn’t fully onboard until Real Madrid got into the discussion with the Messi’s (just to screw with Barca).

Read about Son, he and his dad were in the “star making” business.

Read about whoever it is. Clubs don’t care about you, your kid, your kid’s future. An individual coach might, sure. Nobody is going to do the heavy lifting to “develop more future stars”, that is an investment that doesn’t pencil for anyone EXCEPT the athlete themselves.

Most of the top players on the YNTs play ECNL. Almost all of the USYNT player pools are ECNL.