ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Yawn.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

They did not say this -- they did not use the word implementation. Theya re going to talk about it but the conversation as to wjhat will actually happen is 6-9 months in the future. They did not even hint that they would have any answers next week.

So after all the buildup for this podcast to be all-revealing it was basically nothing! Other than the known fact expressed that nothing is changing next year. And then there was just conversation and speculation about what could possibly happen after next year but nothing is known and there will be more discussion about it all still to come.

Do you really belive there will be no change? Be honest......

Where did get that from? Of course there will be change. It has been indicated already by the USSF communication, but it is also as they’ve stated it will be: no change next year and still tbd and worked out for what that will look like after next year. So basically change through a process after things are worked out and what the podcast indicated too. This change is not imminent like some have been insisting it will be.

They were relaying what the Nov. 22nd discussion was about and also adding their rebuttles. They gave no indication for their plans in 25/26. Why don't we wait on US Club to make an announcement, Mike Cullina CEO, is adamantly against the BY mandate. I highly doubt they think it is a good idea to not find a way to implement this earlier, and honestly US Soccer should support that, that is real time data.

The 1 thing that was made clear was that there will be no change in the next year. Everything else is still being discussed for after next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

They did not say this -- they did not use the word implementation. Theya re going to talk about it but the conversation as to wjhat will actually happen is 6-9 months in the future. They did not even hint that they would have any answers next week.

So after all the buildup for this podcast to be all-revealing it was basically nothing! Other than the known fact expressed that nothing is changing next year. And then there was just conversation and speculation about what could possibly happen after next year but nothing is known and there will be more discussion about it all still to come.

Do you really belive there will be no change? Be honest......

Where did get that from? Of course there will be change. It has been indicated already by the USSF communication, but it is also as they’ve stated it will be: no change next year and still tbd and worked out for what that will look like after next year. So basically change through a process after things are worked out and what the podcast indicated too. This change is not imminent like some have been insisting it will be.

They were relaying what the Nov. 22nd discussion was about and also adding their rebuttles. They gave no indication for their plans in 25/26. Why don't we wait on US Club to make an announcement, Mike Cullina CEO, is adamantly against the BY mandate. I highly doubt they think it is a good idea to not find a way to implement this earlier, and honestly US Soccer should support that, that is real time data.

The 1 thing that was made clear was that there will be no change in the next year. Everything else is still being discussed for after next year.

Keep telling yourself that, I would imagine they have more material than a brief 5 minute explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

I'm for whichever date the data says it's optimal. But you shouldn't be misusing the term trapped. They will be misaligned. Trapped is when you do not have a choice.

Oh never mind your one of those 8/1 states people. Can you name the states?

I know you’re being disingenuous but it’s
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Tennessee
N Dakota
Hawaii

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

And 400+ pages later the reality finally hits that any change will still create trapped players.

Yeah, some solutions in life fix almost all of the problem but not all of the problem.

Save the pointing out that a solution isn't perfect so shouldn't be done comments for meetings that I am not attending as I already work with too many fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Were were just told its goingto be 9/1.... Chill

No we weren’t. We were told what Lavers thinks the cutoff might be. Chill

[Anonymous]

OH man.... You need a safe space bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

I'm for whichever date the data says it's optimal. But you shouldn't be misusing the term trapped. They will be misaligned. Trapped is when you do not have a choice.

Oh never mind your one of those 8/1 states people. Can you name the states?

I know you’re being disingenuous but it’s
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Tennessee
N Dakota
Hawaii

Hotbed of soccer in America. I don't care 8/1 or 9/1, but ECNL could easily just approve waivers for those states for league/event play.

[Anonymous]

We can call it the Hillbilly rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

I'm for whichever date the data says it's optimal. But you shouldn't be misusing the term trapped. They will be misaligned. Trapped is when you do not have a choice.

Oh never mind your one of those 8/1 states people. Can you name the states?

I know you’re being disingenuous but it’s
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Tennessee
N Dakota
Hawaii

OK think about this logically. You are saying it's OK for 1 month of kids in 42 states to be mismatched for 8?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can call it the Hillbilly rule.

You are gross

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

I'm for whichever date the data says it's optimal. But you shouldn't be misusing the term trapped. They will be misaligned. Trapped is when you do not have a choice.

Oh never mind your one of those 8/1 states people. Can you name the states?

I know you’re being disingenuous but it’s
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Tennessee
N Dakota
Hawaii

OK think about this logically. You are saying it's OK for 1 month of kids in 42 states to be mismatched for 8?

42 states don’t use 9/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So actually listening to it vs the transcript - there were a ton of edits. You can tell they had to be VERY careful with their choice of words. No clue what that means, but you should definitely listen to those couple minutes to get a better feel of where they stand.

I think it means what PPs have been saying. No decision what 26/27 looks like an nowhere near ready to go with that. That means 25/26 stay the same.

They actually said that in the next podcast they will tell us what the implementation will look like, my guess is the guest will be Mike Cullina US Club CEO. They also said this was not completely unexpected, they have plans, we will have to wait a little longer.

They did not say this -- they did not use the word implementation. Theya re going to talk about it but the conversation as to wjhat will actually happen is 6-9 months in the future. They did not even hint that they would have any answers next week.

So after all the buildup for this podcast to be all-revealing it was basically nothing! Other than the known fact expressed that nothing is changing next year. And then there was just conversation and speculation about what could possibly happen after next year but nothing is known and there will be more discussion about it all still to come.

Do you really belive there will be no change? Be honest......

Where did get that from? Of course there will be change. It has been indicated already by the USSF communication, but it is also as they’ve stated it will be: no change next year and still tbd and worked out for what that will look like after next year. So basically change through a process after things are worked out and what the podcast indicated too. This change is not imminent like some have been insisting it will be.

They were relaying what the Nov. 22nd discussion was about and also adding their rebuttles. They gave no indication for their plans in 25/26. Why don't we wait on US Club to make an announcement, Mike Cullina CEO, is adamantly against the BY mandate. I highly doubt they think it is a good idea to not find a way to implement this earlier, and honestly US Soccer should support that, that is real time data.

The 1 thing that was made clear was that there will be no change in the next year. Everything else is still being discussed for after next year.

From the podcast:

1. SY is for 26/27
2. Cutoff will be 9/1
3. Possible some smooth transition change for 25/26. That is why we are still waiting for US Club press release.

If you argue above, you have a bias for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy was shooting from the hip with the 9/1 or 8/1 cut off. There will be a lot discussion about the cut off and what works best for all the leagues. I can promise that what everyone is saying here is what will be discussed when trying to find the best solution.

Virginia cut-off is 9/30 so 9/1 or 8/1 will still impact a small number of players. There is no perfect date for anyone so not just revert to the state's to make the cut-off decision based on the state's enrollment laws? Some states would be 8/1, 9/1, or 10/1. There would be a small difference between teams from other states playing each other but the 1 month or two would be insignificant and most importantly players would be playing with their grade.

Right - if the 1-2 months is insignificant then why not have a uniform cutoff so all teams within a league are all operating under the same set of rules?

because then it avoids the issue of having trapped players in various states and if their goal is college soccer. For example if it was 8/1 as the official cut-off anyone after that date would be playing in the year below and missing the opportunity to recruited with those in the same grade.

But if it was 9/1, anyone before that date (specifically speaking for states with an 8/1 cutoff) would be trapped and also miss the opportunity to be recruited with those in the same grade.

I'm for whichever date the data says it's optimal. But you shouldn't be misusing the term trapped. They will be misaligned. Trapped is when you do not have a choice.

Oh never mind your one of those 8/1 states people. Can you name the states?

I know you’re being disingenuous but it’s
Arkansas
Indiana
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Tennessee
N Dakota
Hawaii

OK think about this logically. You are saying it's OK for 1 month of kids in 42 states to be mismatched for 8?

42 states don’t use 9/1

8/31, 9/1, 9/30. Or later. Just saying if it is 8/1 chosen because of those 8 states. There is at least a month of mismatched created that would not be if 9/1 was selected.

[Anonymous]

how did this thread get to 405 pages? it's utter nonsense