ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

Not clear on how anyone can miss that USSF sided with MLS over the entire rest of youth soccer even before the cut and paste statement. It basically said we are in charge but we will give you a crumb 2 years down the road so don't revolt now and btw do things your damn self and don't anger us in the process.

I'm with the PP that pointed out that USSF doesn't bring enough to the table for youth soccer to matter to youth soccer. Time for all of youth soccer to break off and tell the federation to pound sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

Not clear on how anyone can miss that USSF sided with MLS over the entire rest of youth soccer even before the cut and paste statement. It basically said we are in charge but we will give you a crumb 2 years down the road so don't revolt now and btw do things your damn self and don't anger us in the process.

I'm with the PP that pointed out that USSF doesn't bring enough to the table for youth soccer to matter to youth soccer. Time for all of youth soccer to break off and tell the federation to pound sand.

Youth soccer should disassociate from the governing US soccer federation?

Which true soccer country has such a system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

Not clear on how anyone can miss that USSF sided with MLS over the entire rest of youth soccer even before the cut and paste statement. It basically said we are in charge but we will give you a crumb 2 years down the road so don't revolt now and btw do things your damn self and don't anger us in the process.

I'm with the PP that pointed out that USSF doesn't bring enough to the table for youth soccer to matter to youth soccer. Time for all of youth soccer to break off and tell the federation to pound sand.

Youth soccer should disassociate from the governing US soccer federation?

Which true soccer country has such a system?

Unusual envy and obsession with "true" soccer nations and glorious soccer cultures by some in youth soccer aside, the NFL doesn't run pee wee football and the NBA doesn't run local rec leagues, there is no reason for youth soccer to listen to some grand master in a one sided relationship.

Guessing that US Soccer has the age cutoff delay so it can use the funds from Kang to try to better attack ECNL on the girls side. Could see what ECNL's move is shortly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since I live in the DC bubble I have a question. Part of the issue of we can't make this change fast is because there are already tryouts happening in California. What time frame are they trying out for? Here we try out in April for a contract commitment that is basically a year from June to June. Is that a different date range elsewhere like are their contracts Jan to Jan if they have tryouts now?

Its the same here in SoCAL. It's loose thought depending on if you're already with an ECNL team. They are always doing tryouts is the easiest way to put it and that's why you hear tryouts are happening now. If you're moving within leagues then there are set timelines coaches need to follow but you can workout with teams at anytime. You're also seeing flyers passed around here on this thread but those are little kids getting into the league for the first time. Your system in DC is like ours, none of that has bearing on how fast we can move for 2025 change to SY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

Not clear on how anyone can miss that USSF sided with MLS over the entire rest of youth soccer even before the cut and paste statement. It basically said we are in charge but we will give you a crumb 2 years down the road so don't revolt now and btw do things your damn self and don't anger us in the process.

I'm with the PP that pointed out that USSF doesn't bring enough to the table for youth soccer to matter to youth soccer. Time for all of youth soccer to break off and tell the federation to pound sand.

Youth soccer should disassociate from the governing US soccer federation?

Which true soccer country has such a system?

Unusual envy and obsession with "true" soccer nations and glorious soccer cultures by some in youth soccer aside, the NFL doesn't run pee wee football and the NBA doesn't run local rec leagues, there is no reason for youth soccer to listen to some grand master in a one sided relationship.

Guessing that US Soccer has the age cutoff delay so it can use the funds from Kang to try to better attack ECNL on the girls side. Could see what ECNL's move is shortly.

As I once wrote, US Soccer has it easy, having parents throw lots of $. US Soccer does not even send real scouts to select players for the NT, clubs do.

[Anonymous]

I bet the College Soccer Truth account is waiting for the ECNL podcast

[Anonymous]

If Lavers had any stones, he would mandate that ECNL goes school year for 25/26. It rips the bandaid off of something that is coming any way AND it gives first mover advantage for recruiting the top Q3/Q4 kids to the ECNL platform.

Will he do it, probably not, but maybe he should.

I dont think US Soccer really has enough of a stick to punish the ECNL for moving that direction. What are they going to do, limit ID Camp invites? Good luck with 70%+ of all national teams being made up of ECNL players. And I dont think there is much funding from US Soccer. Maybe tournament restrictions or something but who really cares.

[Anonymous]

I love how all the ECNL girl parents have just discovered that MLS controls US Soccer and has for a while.

Sorry you're not special.

Sorry US Soccer doesn't care about college soccer. Although this might change if NCAA blows up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the podcast tomorrow.

12:00 PM Eastern. No interruptions allowed. Noise cancelling headphones, blocked work calendar, note pad and pen in hand. I’m ready.

What's the name of the podcast. Sorry if already asked/answered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Lavers had any stones, he would mandate that ECNL goes school year for 25/26. It rips the bandaid off of something that is coming any way AND it gives first mover advantage for recruiting the top Q3/Q4 kids to the ECNL platform.

Will he do it, probably not, but maybe he should.

I dont think US Soccer really has enough of a stick to punish the ECNL for moving that direction. What are they going to do, limit ID Camp invites? Good luck with 70%+ of all national teams being made up of ECNL players. And I dont think there is much funding from US Soccer. Maybe tournament restrictions or something but who really cares.

Regardless of what US Soccer could, or couldn't do to ECNL, going against the grain for one year of a possible advantage at the expense of ostracizing yourself from the rest of soccer, makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Lavers had any stones, he would mandate that ECNL goes school year for 25/26. It rips the bandaid off of something that is coming any way AND it gives first mover advantage for recruiting the top Q3/Q4 kids to the ECNL platform.

Will he do it, probably not, but maybe he should.

I dont think US Soccer really has enough of a stick to punish the ECNL for moving that direction. What are they going to do, limit ID Camp invites? Good luck with 70%+ of all national teams being made up of ECNL players. And I dont think there is much funding from US Soccer. Maybe tournament restrictions or something but who really cares.

Logistically, I don't believe a particular member can unilaterally change how players are registered because of the software coding. There were members who didn't want to change in 2017, but it wasn't possibly to "stay the same" for that reason. The computer just wouldn't allow it / it would have been too complicated.

If US Club mandates / suggests that everyone "play up" next year - except the fall birthdays who would be allowed to play "at age" - it's a good one year fix. Then by 26/27 hopefully US Soccer will have a pick / choose option for each league within the software. Honestly it probably will take that long for the programmers to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since I live in the DC bubble I have a question. Part of the issue of we can't make this change fast is because there are already tryouts happening in California. What time frame are they trying out for? Here we try out in April for a contract commitment that is basically a year from June to June. Is that a different date range elsewhere like are their contracts Jan to Jan if they have tryouts now?

Its the same here in SoCAL. It's loose thought depending on if you're already with an ECNL team. They are always doing tryouts is the easiest way to put it and that's why you hear tryouts are happening now. If you're moving within leagues then there are set timelines coaches need to follow but you can workout with teams at anytime. You're also seeing flyers passed around here on this thread but those are little kids getting into the league for the first time. Your system in DC is like ours, none of that has bearing on how fast we can move for 2025 change to SY.

Thanks! So 4-5 months to work out age ranges for final tryouts for 25-26 "year" isn't really unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was posted by a SOCAL Board Member

Now as leagues and clubs we are likely going to be faced with a decision. From the information that has been circulating it is unlikely that US Soccer will remove the birth year mandate which will not be a return to a school year mandate as soon have mentioned. It will open the door for leagues, clubs and national organizations (US Club, USYS, AYSO, USSSA, MLS) to make their own determinations on what format they would like to participate in. This has the overt ability to divide the already extremely divided US Soccer landscape even further and with US Club, USYS and AYSO coming out with a joint statement that they will work together to implement a joint decision based on what US Soccer decides, this decision should really be coming from the very top and mandated all the way down. MLS will apparently not change their birth year structure as they are too tightly aligned with the national teams and with MLS' known integration with US Soccer, this is likely the reason that they will not be mandating this change. Whilst US Soccer knows school year is the best way forward, MLS is too ingrained in the fabric of the association's decision making so will always push to have their way even though it may not be best every the greater growth and development of the game. The majority of youth club level play around the world is school year and all national teams are birth year, so why does MLS feel the need to stay on the birth year track?

Thank you for the very long winded way of saying we don't know anything yet. Appreciate it. SOCAL board member, from the information that has been circulating, and I heard it from my moms friend doesn't fool anyone on this board. The wait continues...

You and I got two very different ideas from reading this. Sounds like everyone but MLS wanted school year cutoffs and the mandate to happen sooner rather than later but because US soccer doesn’t want to go against its friend mls it decided to kick the problem down the road a year and then let everyone choose for themselves.

What the tells me is leagues like ECNL are probably thinking about what’s best for them since us soccer definitely is not thinking about that.

Wow! You made 1 + 2 =bacon. It’s genius!

Not clear on how anyone can miss that USSF sided with MLS over the entire rest of youth soccer even before the cut and paste statement. It basically said we are in charge but we will give you a crumb 2 years down the road so don't revolt now and btw do things your damn self and don't anger us in the process.

I'm with the PP that pointed out that USSF doesn't bring enough to the table for youth soccer to matter to youth soccer. Time for all of youth soccer to break off and tell the federation to pound sand.

Youth soccer should disassociate from the governing US soccer federation?

Which true soccer country has such a system?

Unusual envy and obsession with "true" soccer nations and glorious soccer cultures by some in youth soccer aside, the NFL doesn't run pee wee football and the NBA doesn't run local rec leagues, there is no reason for youth soccer to listen to some grand master in a one sided relationship.

Guessing that US Soccer has the age cutoff delay so it can use the funds from Kang to try to better attack ECNL on the girls side. Could see what ECNL's move is shortly.

NFL and NBA has absolutely nothing to do with soccer

Ever heard of the concept of following best practices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Get ready for the podcast tomorrow.

12:00 PM Eastern. No interruptions allowed. Noise cancelling headphones, blocked work calendar, note pad and pen in hand. I’m ready.

What's the name of the podcast. Sorry if already asked/answered.

Breaking the Line

https://breakingtheline.buzzsprout.com/

(not out yet, but usually releases every other Wednesday)