ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

Was that a dig at US Soccer basing their recommendations off of the survey that they sent out like the week before?

That’s how I heard it. Plus their tone at the beginning. Just thought it was off putting. Like they thought the could control the whole ecosystem.

I did find their conversation about international college players interesting. I had no idea the % was so high. Must be very discouraging for any HS boys hoping to play in a big program.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. It definitely sounded like Lavers thinks he is above US Soccer. Specifically him questioning how stringent the mandate was

[Anonymous]

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.

Whether it's 8/1 or 9/1, August kids can always play with the their grade if they are good enough. If they are not, recruiting is probably not in the cards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading up a little bit on Klinsmann, I didn't realize that he had a son that was in the DA from 2011-2014. Interesting that the last registration change was the year after. Klinsmann gone in 2016.

From what I've read about the change, it was primarily Klinsmann and Ramos (YNT team coach at the time) changing it behind closed doors. The youth landscape was not part of the discussion and blind-sided by it. Klinsmann basically thought the US sucked at developing kids, so we should make our best players marketable to European academies and send them there. The YNT angle was to align with their competition so we had more older kids within the age groups, as the old way ended up with too many best players who were 8+ months off the cutoff line. The youth soccer world was pissed that they were cut out of the decision. Just what I've read from people close to the decision/process at the time.

That makes sense, their is a history there. US Club just hired a long time employee of US Soccer to head their compliance department. I think their is a lot more unsaid right now, than said.

This sounds like someone’s pet theory. The age distribution on the YNTs is fairly normal, not Q1 heavy. The theory is disproven by the outcome.

You can ready exactly why and how USSF made the 2016 change, they announced it in 2015, and announced the study of it in relation to international play and RAE in 2014. It was not done under cover of darkness.

[Anonymous]

“if” US Club and ECNL do plan to change their cutoff dates for Fall 26 it would make sense to have some kind of phase in process or opportunity for trapped players and kids who are part of the large U19 groups. It would then fall on the clubs to decide what they want to do. Short term success or plan for long term teams.

I would be very surprised especially how the ECNL president is almost openly mocking pro BY people if a change was not made for Fall 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading up a little bit on Klinsmann, I didn't realize that he had a son that was in the DA from 2011-2014. Interesting that the last registration change was the year after. Klinsmann gone in 2016.

From what I've read about the change, it was primarily Klinsmann and Ramos (YNT team coach at the time) changing it behind closed doors. The youth landscape was not part of the discussion and blind-sided by it. Klinsmann basically thought the US sucked at developing kids, so we should make our best players marketable to European academies and send them there. The YNT angle was to align with their competition so we had more older kids within the age groups, as the old way ended up with too many best players who were 8+ months off the cutoff line. The youth soccer world was pissed that they were cut out of the decision. Just what I've read from people close to the decision/process at the time.

That makes sense, their is a history there. US Club just hired a long time employee of US Soccer to head their compliance department. I think their is a lot more unsaid right now, than said.

This sounds like someone’s pet theory. The age distribution on the YNTs is fairly normal, not Q1 heavy. The theory is disproven by the outcome.

You can ready exactly why and how USSF made the 2016 change, they announced it in 2015, and announced the study of it in relation to international play and RAE in 2014. It was not done under cover of darkness.

I wasn't following this in 2014 but the Pitch to Pro podcast and Skye Eddie piece, both mentioned like 150 pages ago aka last week or so, paint this picture without naming names. It would be tough to find someone who doesn't work for USSF or MLS to disbute the fact that youth soccer (leagues, teams, etc.) wasn't included in the age cutoff change discussion, was firmly against it and was shocked when the change was announced.

And if you look at the 23 and under roster plus alts for the US men's Olympic team, 3 are over age exceptions leaving 19 players. Only 4 have birthdays in the back half of the year. And only 6 players were younger than the 22. So being older is an advantage even at the highest levels of soccer (meaning the if you are good, you are good sentiment is founded in bluster not fact as being on the younger side can be a gatekeeper) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_under-23_soccer_team

This was the plan, help the youth national teams get older on average.

It shouldn't effect the adult national teams other than to have a different group on the rosters, whatever is the older half of the age cohort in their younger years so they can star and then the other half of the year deemed too young to be stars and thus mostly blocked from reaching their potential.

The age cutoffs have been changed enough and are different in different countries that following which adult national players played under what age cutoff(s) in their youth career would be tricky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“if” US Club and ECNL do plan to change their cutoff dates for Fall 26 it would make sense to have some kind of phase in process or opportunity for trapped players and kids who are part of the large U19 groups. It would then fall on the clubs to decide what they want to do. Short term success or plan for long term teams.

I would be very surprised especially how the ECNL president is almost openly mocking pro BY people if a change was not made for Fall 26.

To his credit, mlsn without academy is same level as ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

I agree. They came across this episode as people that know everything and have nothing to learn, and that their perspective is the only correct perspective. Typically I lump people like that into the idiot category. And in for SY!

This episode also made it pretty clear that they view college as the only destination for us players, and a terminal destination, because the next stop for a college player, in their words was to either coach, or raise a kid that plays soccer.

I’m really not sure what to think about ECNL’s future as the college landscape changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“if” US Club and ECNL do plan to change their cutoff dates for Fall 26 it would make sense to have some kind of phase in process or opportunity for trapped players and kids who are part of the large U19 groups. It would then fall on the clubs to decide what they want to do. Short term success or plan for long term teams.

I would be very surprised especially how the ECNL president is almost openly mocking pro BY people if a change was not made for Fall 26.

And NPL without all the super sucky teams is just like ECNL.
To his credit, mlsn without academy is same level as ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading up a little bit on Klinsmann, I didn't realize that he had a son that was in the DA from 2011-2014. Interesting that the last registration change was the year after. Klinsmann gone in 2016.

From what I've read about the change, it was primarily Klinsmann and Ramos (YNT team coach at the time) changing it behind closed doors. The youth landscape was not part of the discussion and blind-sided by it. Klinsmann basically thought the US sucked at developing kids, so we should make our best players marketable to European academies and send them there. The YNT angle was to align with their competition so we had more older kids within the age groups, as the old way ended up with too many best players who were 8+ months off the cutoff line. The youth soccer world was pissed that they were cut out of the decision. Just what I've read from people close to the decision/process at the time.

That makes sense, their is a history there. US Club just hired a long time employee of US Soccer to head their compliance department. I think their is a lot more unsaid right now, than said.

This sounds like someone’s pet theory. The age distribution on the YNTs is fairly normal, not Q1 heavy. The theory is disproven by the outcome.

You can ready exactly why and how USSF made the 2016 change, they announced it in 2015, and announced the study of it in relation to international play and RAE in 2014. It was not done under cover of darkness.

I wasn't following this in 2014 but the Pitch to Pro podcast and Skye Eddie piece, both mentioned like 150 pages ago aka last week or so, paint this picture without naming names. It would be tough to find someone who doesn't work for USSF or MLS to disbute the fact that youth soccer (leagues, teams, etc.) wasn't included in the age cutoff change discussion, was firmly against it and was shocked when the change was announced.

And if you look at the 23 and under roster plus alts for the US men's Olympic team, 3 are over age exceptions leaving 19 players. Only 4 have birthdays in the back half of the year. And only 6 players were younger than the 22. So being older is an advantage even at the highest levels of soccer (meaning the if you are good, you are good sentiment is founded in bluster not fact as being on the younger side can be a gatekeeper) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_under-23_soccer_team

This was the plan, help the youth national teams get older on average.

It shouldn't effect the adult national teams other than to have a different group on the rosters, whatever is the older half of the age cohort in their younger years so they can star and then the other half of the year deemed too young to be stars and thus mostly blocked from reaching their potential.

The age cutoffs have been changed enough and are different in different countries that following which adult national players played under what age cutoff(s) in their youth career would be tricky.

U23 teams, men’s particularly, are not good measures of long term NT strategies. You need to see the U23 team as a consolation team not a 2nd team or a stepping stone to the NT. So of course they’re going to be the oldest of the teams.

My kid is on a YNT, they do not function like a ladder, especially as you get to the older ages where from 16+ you start to have the potential to move up to the senior team vs the next age group.

Skye Eddie is a great parent resource. But she is not an accurate source of truth on US soccer internal debates. The record is public and easily found, rather than relying on parents opinions of what happened, you can just go back and see the actual releases, slides, minutes, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

I agree. They came across this episode as people that know everything and have nothing to learn, and that their perspective is the only correct perspective. Typically I lump people like that into the idiot category. And in for SY!

This episode also made it pretty clear that they view college as the only destination for us players, and a terminal destination, because the next stop for a college player, in their words was to either coach, or raise a kid that plays soccer.

I’m really not sure what to think about ECNL’s future as the college landscape changes.

From percentages though what number of youth soccer players get to play Div 1. Then from there what percentage makes it pro. Am I the only one that remembers the ncaa ad campaign "I went pro in something else"? There is allot to be said about keeping kids in the pipeline with dreams of college soccer. Listening to that non earth shattering podcast that was actually the most interesting part of it. Limit international players and as much as I'm against the incoming administration that seems like something they should be on board with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was reading up a little bit on Klinsmann, I didn't realize that he had a son that was in the DA from 2011-2014. Interesting that the last registration change was the year after. Klinsmann gone in 2016.

From what I've read about the change, it was primarily Klinsmann and Ramos (YNT team coach at the time) changing it behind closed doors. The youth landscape was not part of the discussion and blind-sided by it. Klinsmann basically thought the US sucked at developing kids, so we should make our best players marketable to European academies and send them there. The YNT angle was to align with their competition so we had more older kids within the age groups, as the old way ended up with too many best players who were 8+ months off the cutoff line. The youth soccer world was pissed that they were cut out of the decision. Just what I've read from people close to the decision/process at the time.

That makes sense, their is a history there. US Club just hired a long time employee of US Soccer to head their compliance department. I think their is a lot more unsaid right now, than said.

This sounds like someone’s pet theory. The age distribution on the YNTs is fairly normal, not Q1 heavy. The theory is disproven by the outcome.

You can ready exactly why and how USSF made the 2016 change, they announced it in 2015, and announced the study of it in relation to international play and RAE in 2014. It was not done under cover of darkness.

I wasn't following this in 2014 but the Pitch to Pro podcast and Skye Eddie piece, both mentioned like 150 pages ago aka last week or so, paint this picture without naming names. It would be tough to find someone who doesn't work for USSF or MLS to disbute the fact that youth soccer (leagues, teams, etc.) wasn't included in the age cutoff change discussion, was firmly against it and was shocked when the change was announced.

And if you look at the 23 and under roster plus alts for the US men's Olympic team, 3 are over age exceptions leaving 19 players. Only 4 have birthdays in the back half of the year. And only 6 players were younger than the 22. So being older is an advantage even at the highest levels of soccer (meaning the if you are good, you are good sentiment is founded in bluster not fact as being on the younger side can be a gatekeeper) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_under-23_soccer_team

This was the plan, help the youth national teams get older on average.

It shouldn't effect the adult national teams other than to have a different group on the rosters, whatever is the older half of the age cohort in their younger years so they can star and then the other half of the year deemed too young to be stars and thus mostly blocked from reaching their potential.

The age cutoffs have been changed enough and are different in different countries that following which adult national players played under what age cutoff(s) in their youth career would be tricky.

40% are the back half of the year. It’s 7, not 4, you’re incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

I agree. They came across this episode as people that know everything and have nothing to learn, and that their perspective is the only correct perspective. Typically I lump people like that into the idiot category. And in for SY!

This episode also made it pretty clear that they view college as the only destination for us players, and a terminal destination, because the next stop for a college player, in their words was to either coach, or raise a kid that plays soccer.

I’m really not sure what to think about ECNL’s future as the college landscape changes.

From percentages though what number of youth soccer players get to play Div 1. Then from there what percentage makes it pro. Am I the only one that remembers the ncaa ad campaign "I went pro in something else"? There is allot to be said about keeping kids in the pipeline with dreams of college soccer. Listening to that non earth shattering podcast that was actually the most interesting part of it. Limit international players and as much as I'm against the incoming administration that seems like something they should be on board with.

This is a denominator issue. All depends on the denominator.

For ECNL it’s a pretty big % that go D1, especially on the girls side. For the entire “ecosystem” (grassroots, to HS, to ECNL) it’s pretty small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Might be just me, but they sounded a bit petulant talking about this. Did they really think they could change US soccer in 6 months with a podcast?

Selfishly, Im happy for my early August kid that they are looking at 9/1.

“They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad.”

I agree. They came across this episode as people that know everything and have nothing to learn, and that their perspective is the only correct perspective. Typically I lump people like that into the idiot category. And in for SY!

This episode also made it pretty clear that they view college as the only destination for us players, and a terminal destination, because the next stop for a college player, in their words was to either coach, or raise a kid that plays soccer.

I’m really not sure what to think about ECNL’s future as the college landscape changes.

On the girls side, college is the only destimation for 99.9% of the girls. They should not go further.

[Anonymous]

“The new standard also strives to lessen relative age effect (RAE). RAE is a selection bias towards players born earlier in the calendar year. Players born in early months are naturally older and more mature, but not necessarily better players. While the change to birth year registration won’t completely solve the problem, it will make it easier to identify and understand.“

This is a passage taken from a press release in 2017 describing the change over. I can’t wrap my mind around this logic.