ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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.

I get what you’re saying. One of my kids plays tennis, and the internationals rule that landscape, so is poses a real issue.

I guess what I’m discouraged about is that in their view, US Soccer ends at college, and that seems to be the only option they see for kids to continue playing. And let’s be honest, US college soccer does not produce or prepare, especially on the men’s side, players ready for professional play. College soccer is very different from professional soccer - obviously it has to. In a lot of ways HS soccer is a closer product to college soccer. And their vision doesn’t advance US soccer at all, it actually holds it back.

I try to keep an open mind on this stuff. This is the first time I’ve come away from their podcasts think “wow, these guys are thinking way too narrowly and small. And I’m actually not so sure they are doing the homework on these big questions to inform their opinions.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not "especially" on the girls side "only" from the girls side. I'm pretty sure that was what the talk about % of internationals was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually 6 (the 7th is over 23) in back half and only 1 from Q4. So 70% in 1st half and 30% in 2nd half.

[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.

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

? “They should go no further” ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“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.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

But that's the same team the August kids would play on if the cut off is 9/1. How would it benefit them to be mandated to play on a team that they wouldn't make if if the cut off is 8/1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are trying to say that youth soccer was on board with the age change in 2015 and RAE isn't in youth national teams, you are going to need to do better than say that the Olympics teams aren't real and Skye Eddie, the Pitch to Podcast folks and those on the ECNL podcasts know less than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are trying to say that youth soccer was on board with the age change in 2015 and RAE isn't in youth national teams, you are going to need to do better than say that the Olympics teams aren't real and Skye Eddie, the Pitch to Podcast folks and those on the ECNL podcasts know less than you.

“Youth soccer” is doing a lot of work in your perspective. It’s not monolithic.

Nobody said there is no RAE in YNT, that’s a strawman. Do some reading on it, there is research specifically on the YNT and RAE…maybe check that out?

[Anonymous]

412?? That's all we got? Let's get back in the fight here folks. We're one leak away from 500.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you are trying to say that youth soccer was on board with the age change in 2015 and RAE isn't in youth national teams, you are going to need to do better than say that the Olympics teams aren't real and Skye Eddie, the Pitch to Podcast folks and those on the ECNL podcasts know less than you.

“Youth soccer” is doing a lot of work in your perspective. It’s not monolithic.

Nobody said there is no RAE in YNT, that’s a strawman. Do some reading on it, there is research specifically on the YNT and RAE…maybe check that out?

Couple of posts up, "The age distribution on the YNTs is fairly normal, not Q1 heavy. The theory is disproven by the outcome."

I get that you are a USSF fan or employee but until you find someone not associated with USSF or MLS that feels that they did something right by youth soccer with the age cutoff in 2015, you are trying to create revisionist history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

Aug. 28 for McKinnie

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people who held back their kid from starting school, was your DC diagnosed with a problem before you made the decision?

No one is talking about kids who were held back. We’ve been talking about August kids who live in states with 8/1 cutoffs

Yeah I'm sure any of the posters fighting for 8/1 live in those states. This is a DC area forum, if you live here you held your child back. Your just hoping because small number of states have that cutoff.

My daughters were born two months early. I sent them to school based on their due date (October), not their birthday (August). There are valid reasons as to why kids are “held back”. Having an athletic advantage was not part of my decision making. I think there should be an opportunity to apply for waivers if the cut off is September 1st.

WHAT 😳?
Due Date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“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.

If you’re stuck into the BY/SY debate you won’t be able to see the logic.

The reason for this is because BY is the international standard (but England…blah blah blah…we’re not talking about the BY/SY debate!). Aligning to a signal standard nationally and internationally allows you to look at your player pools and compare them across geographies and globally to see what the oldest cohort in an age is supposed to look like, and the youngest, etc.

In a SY cutoff, when looking at your “u16” your oldest is an August birthday, and your youngest a July. You can’t compare that to a normed benchmark internationally. And if your standard is not mandated nationally, you can’t even compare it nationally. In theory could you compare a 5/2010 kid to a 5/2010 kid? For sure. But the data isn’t that granular, and it’s age band based because RAE (and this is a common misunderstanding) is more than just size, it’s also soccer iq, technique, athleticism, maturity, cognitive ability, visual ability (convergence/divergence, depth perception, peripheral, etc).

No I get that it was affecting our NT, I just think it’s circular reasoning. Pulisic and Mckinnie came up through the DA system. Pulisic being born in Sept. Was DA based on SY or BY? I wasn’t around during the last registration change so I am trying to understand it all a little better. Thanks for your input.

What’s the circle on the logic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible for ECNL to use 9/1 cutoff, and also copies MLSN biobanding to let 3 biobanding players? This will solve trap players for 8/1 or earlier cutoff.

Why is cutoff date the focus vs graduation year. Wouldn’t that solve all of these concerns people are raising?

Biobanding is what the other competing league (MLS) currently using. So they use BY + Biobanding. It is natural for ECNL to use SY + biobanding, instead of GY that no soccer league is currently using. This will solve trapped players.

How is MLS Next a competing league to ECNL?