ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

Very interesting. Doesn’t make sense for ECNL to change things all by themselves? Also why post that now if change was going to happen soon. Good to know. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

All Ive heard was ECNL was asking for the witch. But idk if they’d let one academy operate with such a drastic difference in team configuration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

That was published last year. It’s been the same since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

That was published last year. It’s been the same since then.

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USCS published their age eligibilities this week just to quell this parent rumor run amuck.

Spoiler alert, no changes. AND likely no changes before 2032.

https://usclubsoccer.org/registration-player-age-divisions/

For those that don’t know, ECNL is charted through USCS, which is a member of USSoccer. And change ECNL would make would need approval from USCS, which would in turn need to get approval from USSF.

That was published last year. It’s been the same since then.

No

Click on it. It shows 23/24. They might have just republished it but it’s the same one as last year. Also US club doesn’t make the decision it’s USSF. Which they are talking about it next week.

[Anonymous]

ECNL Director to ECNL Higher Up

I am writing for clarification on a matter concerning the circulating rumors online and around my club about a potential switch to grad year in the ECNL age structure.

I wanted to know if there is any truth to these rumors and if ECNL has discussed or is considering this change for Fall 2025? 

Any insight is greatly appreciated.

ECNL Higher Up to ECNL Director

The answer to your question is yes this topic has been discussed both internally and in broader youth soccer landscape. This change is a real possibility in fall 2025.  We will keep everyone updated and a decision will be made in a timely manner given the communication and planning that must happen for our clubs.

I hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

Won’t name the club but it’s an east coast club. You guys can guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is going to change. There is no incentive for US Soccer to do anything.

As said earlier, they don't have to do anything. ECNL just have to call kids born in Sept-Dec as late bloomers so they can play a year down, in essence just copy MLS Next late bloomer loophole with a definition of born late in the year as a late bloomer as opposed the MLS Next method of apply and get approval.

Nobody brought up the point that the teams and payments are really set on school year so these calendar year age groups have felt a bit like a square peg in a round hole any way. Seems if we went all in on calendar year, new teams would have been set say in Feb and the "season" would end in say Nov.

What's the benefits to a September player who is not a late bloomer playing a year down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is going to change. There is no incentive for US Soccer to do anything.

As said earlier, they don't have to do anything. ECNL just have to call kids born in Sept-Dec as late bloomers so they can play a year down, in essence just copy MLS Next late bloomer loophole with a definition of born late in the year as a late bloomer as opposed the MLS Next method of apply and get approval.

Nobody brought up the point that the teams and payments are really set on school year so these calendar year age groups have felt a bit like a square peg in a round hole any way. Seems if we went all in on calendar year, new teams would have been set say in Feb and the "season" would end in say Nov.

You wrote that with a straight face? 🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is going to change. There is no incentive for US Soccer to do anything.

As said earlier, they don't have to do anything. ECNL just have to call kids born in Sept-Dec as late bloomers so they can play a year down, in essence just copy MLS Next late bloomer loophole with a definition of born late in the year as a late bloomer as opposed the MLS Next method of apply and get approval.

Nobody brought up the point that the teams and payments are really set on school year so these calendar year age groups have felt a bit like a square peg in a round hole any way. Seems if we went all in on calendar year, new teams would have been set say in Feb and the "season" would end in say Nov.

You wrote that with a straight face? 🤣

Copy and paste. Just removed additional info that would give away who the email was to/from. But that’s all real.

[Anonymous]

ECNL just need to allow bio banding, that copy the MLS Next playbook, so its competitor in youth soccer lose its edge when recruiting late bloomers. I see several ECNL players go to MLS Next to take advantage of bio-banding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL just need to allow bio banding, that copy the MLS Next playbook, so its competitor in youth soccer lose its edge when recruiting late bloomers. I see several ECNL players go to MLS Next to take advantage of bio-banding.

It’s not something ECNL is interested in. They have said on record they don’t like bio banding.

I agree keep BY and let each team bio band but only for July to December kids. The closer they are to July the smaller they should be. That should be for US soccer but idk if they really care about development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing is going to change. There is no incentive for US Soccer to do anything.

As said earlier, they don't have to do anything. ECNL just have to call kids born in Sept-Dec as late bloomers so they can play a year down, in essence just copy MLS Next late bloomer loophole with a definition of born late in the year as a late bloomer as opposed the MLS Next method of apply and get approval.

Nobody brought up the point that the teams and payments are really set on school year so these calendar year age groups have felt a bit like a square peg in a round hole any way. Seems if we went all in on calendar year, new teams would have been set say in Feb and the "season" would end in say Nov.

What's the benefits to a September player who is not a late bloomer playing a year down?

Bigger, stronger, faster playing one year down so they are more likely to get on a better team, get a better position, be the star, get the focus of the coaches, and they get to play with their school year classmates.

To be fairs...less of a challenge for sure but the motivational aspects of being the man are big. As Homer says, "If something’s hard to do, then it’s not worth doing.”

When I watch kids one year below my son's age group practice, I can't believe how small they look. And when I watch the kids one year up, I can't believe how big they look.

But as always, you do you.

[Anonymous]

I would be surprised if we haven’t heard what the plan is by Nov 1. All I’ve heard (From my wife’s cousin who work's at ECNL) yes that’s real lol. Is it’s a real possibility that ECNL will change to grad year. And a decision will be made as quick as possible if USSF gives their blessing to give ECNL clubs time to prepare.

But even they did not say that it’s 100%. But thought 70/30 it would happen.