ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[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…?

Had 3/6 teams make nationals and 1 to the semis last year. Definitely not. But if you have received such an email would you be willing to say what state your team is from?

[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.

I don't know about cringe, this isn't MMA, but the point is that RAE is a real thing. Meaning the oldest few months of an age group will have an advantage.

Most people's definition of fair is different and will skew towards there circumstances.

[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.

would imagine they already have this info or can figure it out for say 95% of players from carding etc

[Anonymous]

So I won’t reveal myself but I did get some answers from the higher ups at ecnl . They indeed were thinking about the switch back . Talked it over with USYS . Usys was clear in the stance that they are not changing back . ECNL then got major push back from bigger clubs within that have more ecnl then usys teams that they are not in favor and so on . Ecnl has since switched there stance on this with it being to much now . They will release in Jan that they are not . You talk to anyone who means anything they will tell you same . Take it for what it is but it’s not happening. .

[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.

I don't know about cringe, this isn't MMA, but the point is that RAE is a real thing. Meaning the oldest few months of an age group will have an advantage.

Most people's definition of fair is different and will skew towards there circumstances.

Was she fired from Loudoun Socca?

[Anonymous]

https://socalsoccer.com/threads/get-ready-folks.21527/#post-480145

[Anonymous]

Other people are saying it’s not happening as much as this guys says it is. Everyone’s insiders are giving mixed signals or people are just making things up.

After reading that thread it sounded like they didn’t know what was going to happen with kids being grandfathered in? Not sure how that would even work. Kids can always play up so would you force some kids to stay up rather than go down? Sounds like a mess.

[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

Did you read the context of my post before you triggered yourself?

My point isn’t that bio banding isn’t valuable, it is.

My point was in response to someone else’s post….not a stand-alone about biobanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Every club asks this every year. If they don’t, they have no intention on helping your kid play college ball. It should be part of your players profile.

[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.

I don't know about cringe, this isn't MMA, but the point is that RAE is a real thing. Meaning the oldest few months of an age group will have an advantage.

Most people's definition of fair is different and will skew towards there circumstances.

This is exactly why the biobanders misunderstand RAE. You can be a December baby OR a January baby and qualify for bio banding if you’re behind your peer curve. Bio banding and RAE are mutually exclusive, but often seem to correlate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other people are saying it’s not happening as much as this guys says it is. Everyone’s insiders are giving mixed signals or people are just making things up.

After reading that thread it sounded like they didn’t know what was going to happen with kids being grandfathered in? Not sure how that would even work. Kids can always play up so would you force some kids to stay up rather than go down? Sounds like a mess.

The cheerleaders are wishcasting. ECNL would have addressed it publicly if it had legs, even just to acknowledge the internal discussions with USCS and USSF. They haven’t.

And all the “internal email I wish I could share” posts haven’t shown up anywhere: Reddit, twitter, Facebook, etc…bluring and blacking out replacing deets is not some new thing that is hard to do.

I had a convo with someone the other day at a practice who said they overheard the coaches in the bathroom. When I asked more like “how’d you know it was coaches?” “Did you recognize any of their voices” it quickly turned into “well, I misspoke, it was actually so-and-so who heard it and told me, so I don’t know which coaches.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other people are saying it’s not happening as much as this guys says it is. Everyone’s insiders are giving mixed signals or people are just making things up.

After reading that thread it sounded like they didn’t know what was going to happen with kids being grandfathered in? Not sure how that would even work. Kids can always play up so would you force some kids to stay up rather than go down? Sounds like a mess.

The cheerleaders are wishcasting. ECNL would have addressed it publicly if it had legs, even just to acknowledge the internal discussions with USCS and USSF. They haven’t.

And all the “internal email I wish I could share” posts haven’t shown up anywhere: Reddit, twitter, Facebook, etc…bluring and blacking out replacing deets is not some new thing that is hard to do.

I had a convo with someone the other day at a practice who said they overheard the coaches in the bathroom. When I asked more like “how’d you know it was coaches?” “Did you recognize any of their voices” it quickly turned into “well, I misspoke, it was actually so-and-so who heard it and told me, so I don’t know which coaches.”

Technically they did address it publicly on the ECNL podcast. That’s pretty public. But I agree that the silence since then is meaning things are not progressing like they hoped. Last week I was texted a photo of an email from Doug the ECNL vice president acknowledging that discussions have taken place and that changing back is a real possibility for fall 25. But the email did not say it was definitely happening.

[Anonymous]

The grandfathering issue makes no sense. When they changed it previously you "had" to switch to the new age group because you were too old. There is no rule against playing up, so unless you are no longer good enough to make the older age group there is zero need to disrupt teams.

[Anonymous]

It's defiantly happening, I have an uncle who overheard someone at FIFA discussing this. So, I consider it a done deal. A big announcement is pending to be released on October 1st 2024 to quell all the rumors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's defiantly happening, I have an uncle who overheard someone at FIFA discussing this. So, I consider it a done deal. A big announcement is pending to be released on October 1st 2024 to quell all the rumors.

FIFA