ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

The Klinsman view is basically the view of 99% of the world including most talent developers in the US. 😂

Also, the pathway to the NT you outline is not indirect at all. It’s fairly direct. It’s just not well trodden from the the US to Europe. And UEFA+FIFA have put up some fairly particular obstacles to non-Europe (sans Africa) leveraging the European training ground to better their non-European bench.

A better inroad for the US would be to look South to Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Columbia - but the “common tongue” of the UK and often much of non-Latin Europe is too attractive for Americans.

That is in interesting thought. How are the academies in South America vs. Europe? And have we ever developed a NT player there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not true about NT…but ok.

NT mostly older players who were too old for change to BY to matter. Switch to BY just makes the NT pick slightly different players (the older ones in an age cohort) but doesn't make the team better.

Right…only 14/25 came up through BY standard…”most” must need an updated definition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:August 1 - July 31.

Anyone have an inside scoop on this? Is it a done deal for 2026?

The latest ECNL podcast seems pretty definitive without declaring it to be final.

It is not happening. The whole conversation was a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

Believe Man City is SY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Christian Pulisic meet your standards for "exceptional"? Every MLS team in this country passed on him. He got to the youth national team because of his parents' connections and tremendous skills. Had he stayed here...he'd be stocking shoes somewhere. It took the Germans to realize what they had with him. Americans continue to be focused on size and U14 trophies. Until that changes, nothing will get better. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ytqvzJDCLtI

This actually supports the Klinsmann view that we suck at development so we should send more kids to Europe. I'm pro-SY, but it is possible that being BY-aligned makes our prodigies more marketable early to Europe. So Pulisic gets his chance in Europe easier, and becomes a star. Now, maybe BY made Cavan Sullivan more marketable to Europe (even if he's been playing up and might end up in England rather than mainland Europe), so he goes there as soon as he can and ultimately becomes our Messi. It's a really indirect path to helping the senior NT, and it applies to boys much more than girls, but it is possible.

Believe Man City is SY

I think all premier teams are, at least, according to ECNL's technical director.

[Anonymous]

Cavan Sulivan was born on September 28, Also signed by League that uses September 1.

Not shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cavan Sulivan was born on September 28, Also signed by League that uses September 1.

Not shocking.

So some of the best players from the US are Q3/Q4? We should figure out how to get more of them on our NT.

[Anonymous]

Some of the most attactive players for PREM talent people are September kids. Those are the ones the MLS tries to sell to teams in the UK.

They all believe in RAE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most attactive players for PREM talent people are September kids. Those are the ones the MLS tries to sell to teams in the UK.

They all believe in RAE.

That is a fascinating dichotomy. If we want more players to send to the premier league, it would make sense to align ourselves with their cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most attactive players for PREM talent people are September kids. Those are the ones the MLS tries to sell to teams in the UK.

They all believe in RAE.

Note that the Premier League has some type of under 21 exemption for players, often foreign, which I believe is calendar year. Feel free to fill in the deals on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most attactive players for PREM talent people are September kids. Those are the ones the MLS tries to sell to teams in the UK.

They all believe in RAE.

That is a fascinating dichotomy. If we want more players to send to the premier league, it would make sense to align ourselves with their cut off.

If that was the goal you would want as many BYUSA 4th Q kids in the pipline as possible because the PREM is heavly weighted with kids born SEP1-DEC31.

Do your homwork and you will see its true.

Talking to MLS people they push the September - Decmeber kids hard and see of they can get any buyers.

[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.

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.

Is this sarcasm too?

No, it's what drains people from club soccer and why youth players sometimes move on to other sports or activities. All the hype about Q4 or Q1 just adds fuel to that fire. Sigh. BTW, Q1, Q4, what why do we refer to them as products almost? Again, part of the larger cultural problems with youth soccer -- which changing the registration cutoff fails to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most attactive players for PREM talent people are September kids. Those are the ones the MLS tries to sell to teams in the UK.

They all believe in RAE.

That is a fascinating dichotomy. If we want more players to send to the premier league, it would make sense to align ourselves with their cut off.

If you think the powers that be are going to satisfy five superstar kids with all kinds of financial backing over the 20 million paying families - in an environment where everyone is fighting for a piece of the pie - you might be mistaken. Nothing that US Soccer is doing is geared toward the few dozens of top players. It's about the almighty dollar and how they get mommy and daddy purse strings to pony up so kids can play with their friends.

[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.

The U-23s would have spent most of their formative years under SY. Too early to see the impact on kids that had their entire career under BY.Maybe U-14.

[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.

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

The U-23s would have spent most of their formative years under SY. Too early to see the impact on kids that had their entire career under BY.Maybe U-14.

The figure is 30%. Most of the team was around U14 when it went to BY, about the age ID camps start.