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: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?

Grad Year!

[Anonymous]

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

Which part is nonsense? The fact that the title of this thread has been proven correct?

[Anonymous]

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.

That month of mismatched kids could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That month of mismatched kids could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them.

This this this!! It’s not a misalignment for August kids with 8/1 start dates. They are trapped. August kids with 9/1 start dates are misaligned. That’s nbd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That month of mismatched kids could opt to play up to be aligned with their grade (or not). They would have options. But with a 9/1 cutoff the August kids don’t have an option. They remain trapped with the grade above their own grade, and even worse than in birth year because their 9/1 to 12/31 classmates are no longer trapped with them.



Excellent post.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't forget ...

"Speaker 3: 34:42
One of the interesting parts just to say this and we'll talk about this in more detail, I'll have a guest on, I think, next podcast to talk about this is really kind of an acknowledgement that there is no developmental benefit for one or the other in terms of the cutoff itself. Makes a change in a player's trajectory, a player's ambition.

Speaker 3: 35:01
The level of play all of that stuff is is hogwash to put it scientifically, and that really this is about what people think is best for the player overall the biggest hurdle is disruption yeah and you know, I think we all understand because we've talked about it ad nauseum, but the disruption of listen the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups."

It's kinda funny really to hear about the weaponization of age groups in light of all the discussion here ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

I did, my take is that MLSN didn't want to give up their advantage with their bio-banding program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

Pretty telling where the battle lines are drawn. Already looking forward to the next Podcast.

[Anonymous]

Why does Christian L keep saying if their any authority to US soccer if they follow the rules better than MLSN?

“We could argue whether the mandate really had any power anyway or was more influential.”

[Anonymous]

Thank goodness Mike Cullina lives in a state with a wonky cutoff date

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

I did, my take is that MLSN didn't want to give up their advantage with their bio-banding program.

bio-banding is not used properly in most MLSN clubs, and players generally do not like bio-banding in their team. They are not game changers, and only play down to steal game time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

I did, my take is that MLSN didn't want to give up their advantage with their bio-banding program.

bio-banding is not used properly in most MLSN clubs, and players generally do not like bio-banding in their team. They are not game changers, and only play down to steal game time.

I do not doubt that it is improperly used but let's not act like the premier league doesn't have top players that benefited from bio-banding.

[Anonymous]

Players can't just opt to play up if they want to. They have to be good enough and the club has to allow them to move to the next age group up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch how he was mocking people my guess is MLSN people… We are getting the script early for directors of MLSN clubs recruiting your kids to stay grad year.

“the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.”

I did, my take is that MLSN didn't want to give up their advantage with their bio-banding program.

bio-banding is not used properly in most MLSN clubs, and players generally do not like bio-banding in their team. They are not game changers, and only play down to steal game time.

I do not doubt that it is improperly used but let's not act like the premier league doesn't have top players that benefited from bio-banding.

MLSN is Not Premier League Academy. They are pay to play clubs and majority players there will not even be able to play college. To allow biobanding, so a mediocre player can play down and legally beat down 18 months younger player is not what sports should teach kids.