ECNL moving to school year part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

The reason USSF didn’t mandate SY for all was because MLS people were very much against it and hold a lot of power so USSF said fine everyone do what you want within reason.

I don’t understand why people think MLSN has to do anything. In my mind they should go SY because it’s easier but is that enough of a reason for mls/MLSN leadership who are ran by narcissists who didn’t want SY to also cave? Maybe…

USSF is closer with US Club, than many want to believe.

MLS holds the strongest influence over USSF but at the same time USSF has to agree if all of soccer but one league is asking for the change.

Saying do whatever you want is their way of trying to please everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

The reason USSF didn’t mandate SY for all was because MLS people were very much against it and hold a lot of power so USSF said fine everyone do what you want within reason.

I don’t understand why people think MLSN has to do anything. In my mind they should go SY because it’s easier but is that enough of a reason for mls/MLSN leadership who are ran by narcissists who didn’t want SY to also cave? Maybe…

USSF is closer with US Club, than many want to believe.

Not true, at all.

Yeah? Who is producing more women's national team players?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

The reason USSF didn’t mandate SY for all was because MLS people were very much against it and hold a lot of power so USSF said fine everyone do what you want within reason.

I don’t understand why people think MLSN has to do anything. In my mind they should go SY because it’s easier but is that enough of a reason for mls/MLSN leadership who are ran by narcissists who didn’t want SY to also cave? Maybe…

USSF is closer with US Club, than many want to believe.

Not true, at all.

Yeah? Who is producing more women's national team players?

And who is the president of USSF? Was the head sporting director on MLSN's podcast?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

I know that seems to sound good, but these clubs typically have their lower tiers in the USYS -- which is changing to SY! Both MLSN/GA and ECNL are racing to build out lower tier options BUT they don't currently exist anywhere close to the depth and breadth of USYS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

Wow, you seem so sure. Although the safer bet is you haven’t the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

we have a winner! 🏆

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

Everyone knows that the Q4 birthdays have had a tough time making it on top teams since 2016. It was well-documented on the locked thread. That being a fact, I can honestly argue that having a SY system is better for Q4s.

But of course if all leagues switch to SY, the late spring birthdays may not have the opportunity to play on top teams for the same reason. More "top teams" where more kids get opportunities is better for all those kids.

Your argument about "diluting" and "siloed" is frankly just baloney. It's not that serious.

Well yeah. I think most people would agree that switching to SY would benefit Q4s. I agree with that.

"Your argument about "diluting" and "siloed" is frankly just baloney. It's not that serious." Well I guess we'll agree to disagree. I think further dividing youth soccer and making it more confusing would not help the sport. If you think it would help the sport, please elaborate on why. Maybe having two exlusive systems where Q1s are favored and another where Q4s are favored would be beneficial? Maybe we should just throw in a third cutoff date (where is SY +30 guy?) into the mix and have 3 systems. Or, better yet, we can have 12! That way everyone's kid gets a system that favors their birthday! I like where this is going...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

BY is so hopeful, can't wait for the day to shatter all your wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

BY is so hopeful, can't wait for the day to shatter all your wishful thinking.

Hit too close to home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

I know that seems to sound good, but these clubs typically have their lower tiers in the USYS -- which is changing to SY! Both MLSN/GA and ECNL are racing to build out lower tier options BUT they don't currently exist anywhere close to the depth and breadth of USYS.

Not defending PP, because building that sort of club requires a lot of work, overhead and fields. Having 1 team per age group for GA / MLSN / ECNL doesn’t, and that’s why many clubs let other clubs handle the ulittles.

All that to say, the only reason USYS handles the big clubs feeder tiers and ages is because of sanctioning. Many of the rec and travel lite programs are in house. And also many of the development programs (“junior academy” type programs) are actually fully “off the grid” in terms of sanctioning. Ie. If you look at your kids player card, you’ll see a few years of rec, then a couple of years without sanctioning (no record), then USClub, GA, MLS, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

I think either way, whether they stay BY or go to SY, MLSN/GA eventually will win out and relegate ECNL to a much lower level or just to running local(ish) leagues. I think it would be better, less chaotic and less confusing if they switched to SY and then did that.

Or MLSN retracts from the youth game like the DCU academy possible leaving it altogether like DA and GA never rises up high enough to challenge ECNL and NWSL doesn't start its own like.

Either way, nobody will eventually win out, these leagues don't last forever. The clubs collect all the cash and the leagues can only vacuum in so much before they are pushed around by the clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

This actually makes sense. You have to remember GA was created by clubs after DA blew up. The fact that MLSN and GA haven't said anything suggests that different options are being considered. Also GA and MLS can sanction leagues however that want. All the peices are in place if this is what they want to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

It would be better if MLSN + GA stayed BY and "ate ECNLs lunch". This way they not only address ECNL they also take half of US Clubs customers.

Will be interesting to see what happens.
The tough part is only top teams can plays MLSN or a u little league.
Where clubs can have 2-5 teams play USYS or us club. Do they want to poss off the money maker leagues for only the top teams if it came down to choosing one or the other?

A single MLSN + GA club is going to have 2-5 levels of teams for both girls and boys at every age. They can just work with other MLSN + GA clubs to make multiple levels of leagues all the way down to youngers.

Top to bottom BY leagues can be done but once the decision is made theres no turning back.

I know that seems to sound good, but these clubs typically have their lower tiers in the USYS -- which is changing to SY! Both MLSN/GA and ECNL are racing to build out lower tier options BUT they don't currently exist anywhere close to the depth and breadth of USYS.

Not defending PP, because building that sort of club requires a lot of work, overhead and fields. Having 1 team per age group for GA / MLSN / ECNL doesn’t, and that’s why many clubs let other clubs handle the ulittles.

All that to say, the only reason USYS handles the big clubs feeder tiers and ages is because of sanctioning. Many of the rec and travel lite programs are in house. And also many of the development programs (“junior academy” type programs) are actually fully “off the grid” in terms of sanctioning. Ie. If you look at your kids player card, you’ll see a few years of rec, then a couple of years without sanctioning (no record), then USClub, GA, MLS, etc.

That's not been my experience at all. In my large metro area, there no clubs with "off the grid" teams during the regular season. Maybe some summer/winter leagues but that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think many people forget MLSNext is not just MLS Academies.

On the contrary, with tier 2 expansion the MLSN P2P clubs outnumber the academies.

So MLSN can’t ditch P2P clubs’ interests (huge amount of money is coming from P2P clubs to MLSN).

For a MLSN P2P it’s impossible to keep 2 age systems. Organization would be crazy.

U12 and younger, plus the rest of older teams (non MLSN) will be playing SY … so I see unavoidable that MLSN P2P push for moving to SY.

P2P MLSN clubs vastly outnumbered Academies before MLSN2 arrived. It is just, literally, another soccer league in a soup of them. Some of these people on here acting like these kids are all going pro and need to be grouped by BY because ('sans England') other countries group by BY (they do that because BY is also their school year cohorts) is wild. I know certain generations are susceptible to marketing but dang. Nothing would change if MLSN went SY or stayed BY. It would not change an iota. My god...

Why dont you just mind your own business and let people do what they want. Oh ya you know that if MLSN stays BY they will just ignore ECNL even more than they already do. Which will be really bad for boys ECNL.

I' m glad you think I have some sort of 'say' on what happens. Do you think the board of MLSN is here reading our posts and going, "hmmm. Anon#20232 had a really good point there, let's change to SY!"?

Personally, I don't care if they change or not. My kid plays MLSN1 and I love the competition and strength of the league.

What month is your son? Maybe are you afraid that your boy won’t be a starter, or even not make his MLSN1 team, if MLSN1 moves to SY?

Just asking …

I’ve been saying SY is the correct call for MLSN man. I don’t think a fractured system where two silos (BY/SY) have different age cutoffs benefits anyone but the leagues themselves.

Boy, both sides of this debate are hella suspicious.

Can't say I agree with this. If you're the oldest in a particular age group system, you will benefit as a player. So in the SY system, the August - December bdays benefit (a lot) by being the oldest and getting more opportunities. And same for the spring birthdays in the BY system. Having two systems gives more opportunities for more players!

Please explain how further fracturing (an already fractured and confusing youth system) even further "gives more opportunities for more players!"? What is going to happen is we would end up with entire clubs, cities and ecosystems split into BY and SY. How does that benefit anyone except for those at the top?

"gives more opportunities for more players!". Yes. It gives more opportunities for players/famlies to get fleeced. Sounds great.

Happy to explain. The fall bday players will have more opportunities for top teams to get out on the field and play soccer in the SY leagues. Same for spring birthdays in the BY leagues.

You wouldn't necessarily have to travel more. You could just play the same teams more times. So your economic argument doesn't hold water. This is about kids playing soccer - and there will be more of them doing that with two systems. Don't be salty.

If they are split up you have lowered the bar for being on a top team. That hurts everyone.

It's not "if." They will be split up in 26/27 if MLS Next and GA stay BY. US Club and USYS are changing to school year for sure. So are you suggesting MLS Next and GA MUST change to SY for the sake of youth soccer? If so, just say that.

I would suggest that yes. Your solution just makes things more confusing, more diluted, and ultimately does not progress youth soccer for anyone. Creating two completely siloed systems (which ECNL is clearly trying to do, and now MLSN with MLSN2 seems to be also doing) isn't good for the sport. You can't honestly argue that it will be. They should probably have never changed it in 2016, and they should not have then decided to change it again. But it is what it is.

Is that fair for these other two groups to now change if they don't want really to? No, it is not fair. it sucks but it would be better for the sport to change. That's all. I don't give a shit about ECNL or any other league in particular. I hope MSNL/GA changes to SY and then eats ECNL for lunch. One less league would be fantastic.

Everyone knows that the Q4 birthdays have had a tough time making it on top teams since 2016. It was well-documented on the locked thread. That being a fact, I can honestly argue that having a SY system is better for Q4s.

But of course if all leagues switch to SY, the late spring birthdays may not have the opportunity to play on top teams for the same reason. More "top teams" where more kids get opportunities is better for all those kids.

Your argument about "diluting" and "siloed" is frankly just baloney. It's not that serious.

Maybe having two exlusive systems where Q1s are favored and another where Q4s are favored would be beneficial? Maybe we should just throw in a third cutoff date (where is SY +30 guy?) into the mix and have 3 systems. Or, better yet, we can have 12! That way everyone's kid gets a system that favors their birthday! I like where this is going...

If the market supports it - and kids want to play soccer - why not have 3 or 4 cutoff systems? Saying youth soccer will fall apart if we "dilute" it is just a scare tactic / overdramatization. The kids will be fine.

Sure, having multiple age group cutoffs, all siloed into their own universe, wouldn't kill youth soccer. Soccer would go on and be 'fine' for a while.

Would the resulting players be better? Would the product and associated costs be better for families (both in time and money)? I think it would cause more confusion and chaos, driving more players and families (slowly) from the sport. But maybe not. Maybe the more leagues and age cutoffs we add into the system the better it will get!

As of now, multiple age group cutoffs is the plan for 26/27. Hopefully there isn’t too much “confusion and chaos”. Have a guess there will be none of that - but a greater variety kids (by age) will be able to play on top teams for sure.