ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not sure why they would be ostracized by other leagues if they give advance notice off intentions. And ECNL's power is because of its dominance on the girl's side. They need to maintain or expand this to have any pull in youth soccer so whatever does this is in their best interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your two lines are a contradiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

A left footed child has perhaps twice the advantage of a Sept-December now will, but it means nothing without putting in the WORK.
It's work work work that is the key.
This game is so easy to be good at, if you put in the work
The little advantages help... but it's the work that matters.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure Gotsport registration would have no problem implementing a drop down to select SY or BY for this year. They are likely going to have to do that anyway next year as they need to have flexibility for clubs registering teams into different leagues if they all don't change. Honestly think everyone except for MLSN will change.

[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.

Blind adherence to that thinking is how we ended up switching to BY. If, e.g., Spain is doing something different than us, we should consider it *and* be able to explain why it's better before adopting it. Saying, "this is what they do" as if that's sufficient justification is silly. The problem for BY in this iteration of the battle has always been that it just couldn't come up with a reason for why it's better for anyone except youth national teams and MLS. They just hoped they could keep hand-waving around the reasoning and everyone would be too stupid to notice.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A left footed child has perhaps twice the advantage of a Sept-December now will, but it means nothing without putting in the WORK.
It's work work work that is the key.
This game is so easy to be good at, if you put in the work
The little advantages help... but it's the work that matters.

Save for the kids, coach. Parents are putting in the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your two lines are a contradiction.

How so?

Soccer best practices have nothing to do with NFL or NBA best practices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Blind adherence to that thinking is how we ended up switching to BY. If, e.g., Spain is doing something different than us, we should consider it *and* be able to explain why it's better before adopting it. Saying, "this is what they do" as if that's sufficient justification is silly. The problem for BY in this iteration of the battle has always been that it just couldn't come up with a reason for why it's better for anyone except youth national teams and MLS. They just hoped they could keep hand-waving around the reasoning and everyone would be too stupid to notice.

They are basically using the same justification for the change today, that they used in 2017. I'm starting to think MLS pushed it in 2017 and no one stood up to them at the time, now USYS and US Club have different leadership and goals that no longer aligned with US Soccer and MLS. US Soccer/MLS have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, hence there mealy mouthed response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesnt Rory Dames still own a club in ECNL? That kind of shows you that ECNL doesnt really care about being ostracized!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure Gotsport registration would have no problem implementing a drop down to select SY or BY for this year. They are likely going to have to do that anyway next year as they need to have flexibility for clubs registering teams into different leagues if they all don't change. Honestly think everyone except for MLSN will change.

You're probably right. Chris Lavers should ask for that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesnt Rory Dames still own a club in ECNL? That kind of shows you that ECNL doesnt really care about being ostracized!

Good point. You're probably right. We will see how ECNL handles it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesnt Rory Dames still own a club in ECNL? That kind of shows you that ECNL doesnt really care about being ostracized!

accusations shouldn't get you disqualified for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Doesnt Rory Dames still own a club in ECNL? That kind of shows you that ECNL doesnt really care about being ostracized!

accusations shouldn't get you disqualified for anything.

You're gonna die on that hill? Ok.