ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.”

What is the best way to advance soccer is to have college soccer be the highest level? College soccer is the highest level most will play -- only a few go pro and now many that go pro are skipping college -- soccer is a game not the be all and end all. Most are dumb to go pro.

On the girls side, Pro means so many different things. Play for Chelsea or play for the 2nd division in Greece or Iceland. A not insignificant portion of standout collegiate players choose to get on with their lives vs being a minimum salary NWSL player. And fewer still go straight from youth ENCL or Academies to playing meaningful minutes in a true pro system. So, yes, I think college is the end goal/pinnacle for most top girls soccer players. At least with the current strategy of US Soccer. I reserve the right to change my mind if they develop free elite academies in the US for the sole purpose of developing elite pros, similar to the MLS Academies.

Pay/benefits improving for NWSL ... https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/23/nwsl-gets-rid-of-draft-raises-players-minimum-salary-with-new-agreement.html

So what?

At best it is an 8-10 year job and then what? More likely it is a 2-4 year job and then what? Many of these girls have options. On a visit we had at an IVY half of the women on the team were pre-med. Sure you could play for a couple of years and then med school -- NFL players have done that (Florida State player a couple of years back was at MassGen) and Lin did that in the NBA out of Harvard -- he made millions. But the potential payday from doing this is just not there for almost all.

Maybe one who plays professionally could then leverage that knowledge, experience and any fame to form a youth league that eventually surpasses the ECNL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

[Anonymous]

All the REA comments are silly.

If Leagues cared about RAE they'd let the 2nd half of the year long eligibility window play down if the player wants to.

Boom RAE goes away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

This is why people on both sides are arguing for or against BY. Because RAE is real. If BY people weren't really nervous about a change that allows older kids to play against their children they wouldn't be here complaining and arguing with pro SY people. ECNL level is tough and any advantage you can get you take.

When and if the change does happen we will find out if Q1/2 kids were always just better players or if they were just benefiting from the way the age groups were configured.

Maybe someone should tell you that bad player in BY is bad player in SY

So the bad November player doesn't become a star player with a SY change

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who knows about pro sports doesnt want their kid playing any form of pro soccer in America.

Minor league baseball pays way more!

Not playing any club sports saves a ton of money that easily could be invested to pay for a college of choice. So, why even play club soccer, then? Just play rec and HS school. Have fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the last ECNL podcast:
"[Y]ou 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."

Do others agree with this? It is the most common argument in favor of birth year - that it's better for the small segment who will play pro or for youth national teams. He's saying even that is wrong.

Is there any studies or data, that changing to BY registration has improved our NT? Or is this all anecdotal?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

This is why people on both sides are arguing for or against BY. Because RAE is real. If BY people weren't really nervous about a change that allows older kids to play against their children they wouldn't be here complaining and arguing with pro SY people. ECNL level is tough and any advantage you can get you take.

When and if the change does happen we will find out if Q1/2 kids were always just better players or if they were just benefiting from the way the age groups were configured.

Maybe someone should tell you that bad player in BY is bad player in SY

So the bad November player doesn't become a star player with a SY change

Bad players don't get on top teams. It's all a matter of degree and especially at younger age groups with time and attention where even size can factor in. I've seen clubs move down smaller-sized players -- even when they had the most skill and scored all the goals while on the A team -- to the B team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

Just look at the careers or lack there of for pro draftees to realize that coaches, clubs, scouts lack E.S.P. So PP is clearly being funny, and it worked, good on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

Just look at the careers or lack there of for pro draftees to realize that coaches, clubs, scouts lack E.S.P. So PP is clearly being funny, and it worked, good on them.

ESP or not, they still pick currently exceptional players over everyone else, every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the last ECNL podcast:
"[Y]ou 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."

Do others agree with this? It is the most common argument in favor of birth year - that it's better for the small segment who will play pro or for youth national teams. He's saying even that is wrong.

Is there any studies or data, that changing to BY registration has improved our NT? Or is this all anecdotal?

Yes. You can look at the results and the smoothing of birth quartile on the YNTs.

His “garbage” is his opinion. It’s dismissive, inconvenient and devoid of the factual record. It was disappointing that he just threw that out there as if opinion was fact.

You can trot out some insatiable expert who will say the “jury is still out” because there is never enough data to them. But there is data.

Had zero impact on NT and wasn't meant/expected to have an impact. Very well could have had an impact on YNT because the are now older players in each age group on average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

Cutoff year relative to a child's birth day is a factor in determining their predicted soccer outcome.

Not for the exceptional players.

They are the ones making truly elite teams.
(not everything called elite is elite)

The arguments in this thread is for the others.

Actual research disagrees with your opinion.

Coaches and clubs have never overlooked exceptional players. Ever.

You’re missing PPs point.

I think it was sarcasm. Regardless, it is funny.

Don't confuse good player with exceptional player

Just look at the careers or lack there of for pro draftees to realize that coaches, clubs, scouts lack E.S.P. So PP is clearly being funny, and it worked, good on them.

ESP or not, they still pick currently exceptional players over everyone else, every time.

Ok, wow, was serious, my bad. Tough to argue coaches are perfect but you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid needs all this cutoff year gymnastics to be competitive or a standout against younger kids, then college recruitment can't be a realistic goal.

This is why people on both sides are arguing for or against BY. Because RAE is real. If BY people weren't really nervous about a change that allows older kids to play against their children they wouldn't be here complaining and arguing with pro SY people. ECNL level is tough and any advantage you can get you take.

When and if the change does happen we will find out if Q1/2 kids were always just better players or if they were just benefiting from the way the age groups were configured.

Maybe someone should tell you that bad player in BY is bad player in SY

So the bad November player doesn't become a star player with a SY change

Your hyperbole seems to have clouded your senses here. Give or take the actual new cutoff by a month or so, Q1/2 gets relatively worse and Q3/4 gets relatively better. Those that disagree don't understand the meaning of the word relatively.