ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This may be partially true, but puberty hits kids within about a four-year span. Ultimately this is not about height...there's a huge difference between a kid who has hit puberty or is mostly through their growth spurt and one who is still a child in all areas.
It would be nice if we could group kids according to their biological and soccer development without all of the birthdays and moving numbers, but our culture has shown a thirst for trophies and the adults (coaches and parents) being incapable of policing themselves. So, we can't do right by the kids in terms of playing up or down. You have to draw a line in the sand and live with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This may be partially true, but puberty hits kids within about a four-year span. Ultimately this is not about height...there's a huge difference between a kid who has hit puberty or is mostly through their growth spurt and one who is still a child in all areas.
It would be nice if we could group kids according to their biological and soccer development without all of the birthdays and moving numbers, but our culture has shown a thirst for trophies and the adults (coaches and parents) being incapable of policing themselves. So, we can't do right by the kids in terms of playing up or down. You have to draw a line in the sand and live with it.

Not saying you’re wrong just saying what I know to be true.

[Anonymous]

More than likely things going back to SY so bio banding won’t be needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That first sentence is truly cringe 😬

Beat-up on younger smaller kids to create a false sense of performance superiority.
Sad approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That first sentence is truly cringe 😬

Beat-up on younger smaller kids to create a false sense of performance superiority.
Sad approach.

Not to mention the one it hurts in the long run is the kid who is playing against smaller players for a competitive advantage. Most high level players or coaches will tell you that you create a diamond through pressure. This is why some of the best players were small for their age during the development years. They were forced to outwork everyone to keep up with the size. Once they get on a level physically, their superior work ethic and skills come to the forefront.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More than likely things going back to SY so bio banding won’t be needed.

SY and bio-banding address separate and different issues.

SY change addresses: “play with friends”, “trapped players” (and their parents) feeling like they didn’t get a proper look in their senior year (but everyone knows id you aren’t getting calls junior year…they’re just not that interested).

Bio-banding addresses: RAE and late bloomer (which can be mutually exclusive).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That first sentence is truly cringe 😬

Beat-up on younger smaller kids to create a false sense of performance superiority.
Sad approach.

Not to mention the one it hurts in the long run is the kid who is playing against smaller players for a competitive advantage. Most high level players or coaches will tell you that you create a diamond through pressure. This is why some of the best players were small for their age during the development years. They were forced to outwork everyone to keep up with the size. Once they get on a level physically, their superior work ethic and skills come to the forefront.

Bio-banding definitely has upsides for specifically situations. That said, it blows me away that the parent-cheerleaders for it always assume college coaches are idiots and can’t see that a kid playing down that is dominating may not flourish playing at age or older.

RAE is not an excuse for crap technique and crap Soccer IQ. The South American squads aren’t fielding giants, and they aren’t bellyaching about late bloomers. Only American parents, the same type who ruined the GT programs with their “every child is exceptional” BS. Bio-banding is just the banner they’re waving for snowplow for their DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That first sentence is truly cringe 😬

Beat-up on younger smaller kids to create a false sense of performance superiority.
Sad approach.

Not to mention the one it hurts in the long run is the kid who is playing against smaller players for a competitive advantage. Most high level players or coaches will tell you that you create a diamond through pressure. This is why some of the best players were small for their age during the development years. They were forced to outwork everyone to keep up with the size. Once they get on a level physically, their superior work ethic and skills come to the forefront.

Bio-banding definitely has upsides for specifically situations. That said, it blows me away that the parent-cheerleaders for it always assume college coaches are idiots and can’t see that a kid playing down that is dominating may not flourish playing at age or older.

RAE is not an excuse for crap technique and crap Soccer IQ. The South American squads aren’t fielding giants, and they aren’t bellyaching about late bloomers. Only American parents, the same type who ruined the GT programs with their “every child is exceptional” BS. Bio-banding is just the banner they’re waving for snowplow for their DC.

Considering Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England etc has bio-banding programs for many years now, your ignorance on full blast rife with hyperbole is quite pitiful

[Anonymous]

Just got an email from our ECNL director asking for players to provide grade year/graduation year. No context/ additional information given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from our ECNL director asking for players to provide grade year/graduation year. No context/ additional information given.

We got a similar email a few weeks ago. With the closing being focused on this is just a data gathering exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from our ECNL director asking for players to provide grade year/graduation year. No context/ additional information given.

ECNL? Our club did not ask anything like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That first sentence is truly cringe 😬

Beat-up on younger smaller kids to create a false sense of performance superiority.
Sad approach.

Not to mention the one it hurts in the long run is the kid who is playing against smaller players for a competitive advantage. Most high level players or coaches will tell you that you create a diamond through pressure. This is why some of the best players were small for their age during the development years. They were forced to outwork everyone to keep up with the size. Once they get on a level physically, their superior work ethic and skills come to the forefront.

Bio-banding definitely has upsides for specifically situations. That said, it blows me away that the parent-cheerleaders for it always assume college coaches are idiots and can’t see that a kid playing down that is dominating may not flourish playing at age or older.

RAE is not an excuse for crap technique and crap Soccer IQ. The South American squads aren’t fielding giants, and they aren’t bellyaching about late bloomers. Only American parents, the same type who ruined the GT programs with their “every child is exceptional” BS. Bio-banding is just the banner they’re waving for snowplow for their DC.

Considering Germany, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, England etc has bio-banding programs for many years now, your ignorance on full blast rife with hyperbole is quite pitiful

Sweden and Norway as well. Anyone who’s used the to line up with the rest of the world argument is just using their echo chambers and wants to hold onto their January privilege. They really have no idea that most of the world’s top countries are actually trying to develop players for the future.

Not just kids born Jan-July.

[Anonymous]

All I'm saying is, when I'm watching a U13 or U14 game and hear there's biobanding kids on the field, I shouldn't be able to pick them out based on size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from our ECNL director asking for players to provide grade year/graduation year. No context/ additional information given.

ECNL? Our club did not ask anything like this.

Your club may be losing its ECNL slot…?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got an email from our ECNL director asking for players to provide grade year/graduation year. No context/ additional information given.

ECNL? Our club did not ask anything like this.

Your club may be losing its ECNL slot…?

Or our club is just updating its databases/information to get ready for recruiting ages