ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm done with this topic.

Too many wuss B team parents that don't understand how high level sports work.

If you cant hang with the rest of the players on the team because of whatever excuse dejour it won't matter because your kid is going to quit playing soon anyway.

Unfortunate there's a very vocal group of numbnuts that don't matter crying on this thread

Fun to listen to parents call B team parents and kids wusses and bad players and when all we are saying is let my kid compete with yours for a spot. Why you so scared? I can only imagine how scared you are of the A team Q3/4 kids that can also compete with your kids.

The real Q1/2 studs and their parents also want a switch to school year and have the confidence their player can handle competing with older kids.

It’s the Q1/2 parents who can barely make and play that are nervous.

🤦‍♂️ this is a dumb take. The studs don’t give an S if it’s SY or BY. They’re eating everyone else’s breakfast, lunch and dinner in the opportunities game. That isn’t a birth month issue.

The parent or kid, regardless of birth month, who can “barely make and play” also don’t care about BY or SY…because they’re always nervous (they’re also probably not in ECNL).

Only these weird bubble parents and kids care either way about SY or BY on either side of the debate. But news flash! It still doesn’t matter! Nothing replaces doing the hard work. An age cutoff change doesn’t make anyone better or worse, the work still has to be done.

And just a quick point of correction - every single Q4 ECNL top team family I know is pissed about this change.

Weird to get angry and pretend to flex when as you say age cutoffs don't matter. They matter enough to you.

? No, they don’t. They have zero impact on my kid or me. My kid already plays up and starts on her ECNL team, that won’t change. She’s one of the best in the country at her position. And college probably isn’t her play.

Cutoffs don’t matter.

Cutoffs don't matter for a kid like yours, but they do for the large majority, especially when making a huge change that's appears ahead. For the humbled masses, it would be better if we had a system where maybe the better younger players played with the average older ones where both SY and BY still existed. Maybe we need half the country to do school by BY, so the benefits can go beyond sports.

I understand your point. I think it’s a matter of perspective, though, at the higher levels it really only matters for kids on the bubble. No age cut off is good for kids on the bubble either direction. But this is very short term debate, which will change in 2026 makes some people feel like winners, and some people feel like losers if their kid is on the bubble, I suspect in the grand scheme of things it won’t actually matter much there either. It’s just about feelings

So submit that it really doesn’t matter outside of the highest competition levels, but it feels like it does there too.

Everyone is on a bubble at some point. It will matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter’s club team made the semi finals at nationals last year 80% of the team is going to play high school. Our coach doesn’t discourage it. He’s not overall fond of it but many of the girls play on great high school teams with solid competition.

So even at the elite level girls like playing sports with friends from school.

What team.?

Someone else made that a similar claim about the SC Surf boys that was false earlier in the thread.

You are a lying, lazy, and pathetic. The results from last year's Finals with a link (one of many) is below. Obviously, you are too lazy to look for yourself and assume others are lying. Since you had the time to post, you had the time to look.

False claim my a$$.

https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-soccer-articles/ecnl-boys-national-finals-scoreboard_aid53515

Under-15

Quarterfinals

Utah Avalanche 0-1 Rockford Raptors
Pipeline SC 2-1 San Diego Surf
Richmond United 1-2 Wilmington Hammerheads
SC Surf 1-0 Crosssfire

Semifinals

Rockford Raptors 2-3 Pipeline SC
Wilmington Hammerheads 1-2 SC Surf

Final

Pipeline SC 2-3 SC Surf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TRAPPED PLAYERS....

BY parents don’t care about trapped players because their kids are trapped so it’s not a problem for them. What is a problem is Q3/4 2010 joining with their Q1/2 2011s they are petrified of that for some reason.

Everyone knows whats up. My kids club is moving kids around for frendlies over the slower december time frame. My Son played with his SY team. Not sure if its the right place from a development standpoint but the clear advantages with avoiding trapped player BS, recruiting snaffu's, playing with school mates plus the U19 26 player roster make it well worth while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TRAPPED PLAYERS....

BY parents don’t care about trapped players because their kids are trapped so it’s not a problem for them. What is a problem is Q3/4 2010 joining with their Q1/2 2011s they are petrified of that for some reason.

Everyone knows whats up. My kids club is moving kids around for frendlies over the slower december time frame. My Son played with his SY team. Not sure if its the right place from a development standpoint but the clear advantages with avoiding trapped player BS, recruiting snaffu's, playing with school mates plus the U19 26 player roster make it well worth while.

ECNL has not released its plan. 2/27 is definitely too long for them. Everyone, including the ECNL clubs, is waiting on their plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TRAPPED PLAYERS....

BY parents don’t care about trapped players because their kids are trapped so it’s not a problem for them. What is a problem is Q3/4 2010 joining with their Q1/2 2011s they are petrified of that for some reason.

Everyone knows whats up. My kids club is moving kids around for frendlies over the slower december time frame. My Son played with his SY team. Not sure if its the right place from a development standpoint but the clear advantages with avoiding trapped player BS, recruiting snaffu's, playing with school mates plus the U19 26 player roster make it well worth while.

ECNL has not released its plan. 2/27 is definitely too long for them. Everyone, including the ECNL clubs, is waiting on their plan.

I can't think one reason kids need to suck it up for another year of trapped player crap.

Can you?

[Anonymous]

Our ECNL director said ECNL is definitely changing to different cut offs for Fall 26. ECNL hasn’t finalized their plan yet. He didn’t seem to think their would be any major changes for Fall 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

It may surprise you to hear, but most boys before U13 aren't thinking about their path to MLSN. Some really ambitious kids (or more likely their parents) might rush to a U8 MLSN-next-next league, but I wouldn't want to bet my non-MLSN club on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

Not really how rec works, they don't get any reward for sending players to better leagues.

I agree that the landscape for youth soccer leagues will be real different in say 5 years but no one knows what will happen.

These rec leagues have more staying power than the "top" leagues, see the demise of DA and the fall of ODP.

Our guesses are as good as anyone elses.

[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:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

It may surprise you to hear, but most boys before U13 aren't thinking about their path to MLSN. Some really ambitious kids (or more likely their parents) might rush to a U8 MLSN-next-next league, but I wouldn't want to bet my non-MLSN club on that.

But clubs are thinking about it.

Meaning if there's two rec leagues clubs will align to the higher level league they want to play in MLSN or ECNL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What ECNL should do is not have A/B teams, but teams that are Q1/Q2-focused and Q3/Q4-focused. The better players in year 12-year window should play with the other grouping. So, the best Q3/Q4 play on the Q1/Q2-focused and the best Q1-Q2, play on the Q3/Q4 focused. Increase participation and help minimize RAE.

Not all clubs have multiple teams or even Regional level teams. There are clubs that have only 1 (ECNL) national team per age.

Right, because the player pool isn't big enough. Maybe it would be if we could minimize RAE better. These solutions could be perhaps achieved by having different leagues focused this way. The challenge, though, is instead of focusing on these type of solutions, we hear too much of the crap (the my kid will crush your kid stuff) about how clubs will be looking for a temporary edge as the teams get jumbled.

For the billionth time switching from BY to SY does NOTHING for addressing RAE.

The RAE affect is the same under both BY and SY. All you're doing is shifting which birthdays are most affected.

Stop using RAE as a reason for SY it makes you look stupid and people think that you're trying to be sneaky. Which you are.

People with Q3/4 want the RAE advantage for their kids that’s why they want SY.

So, to summarize:

Q3/4 people want SY for the RAE advantage.

Q1/2 people want BY for the RAE advantage.

Most leagues want SY to eliminate trapper player problems and club participation.

The only leagues that have expressed that they want SY is ECNL and USYS.

If GA and MLS stay BY + create their own feeder BY rec league, leagues like SOCAL might lose half their players.

SOCAL would lose half their players? They would disappear? Kids would just be on a new team.

In LA/San Diego SOCAL league is who everyone uses up until GA or ECNL kick in at u13. Even after u13 clubs 3rd and 4th teams become the SOCAL top tier for u13 and above. It's basically competitive rec.

If all the BY clubs (MLSN GA DPL) got together and created a SOCAL alternative BY rec league SOCAL would lose half their players and ECNL + GA would be completely walled off all the way down to the littles.

2 problems. No talk of such a new rec league exists (it would be expensive to kick start and get volunteers) and nobody is getting walled off. Coaches can recruit kids for ECNL or MLSN or DA from wherever.

And ECNL(US Club)/USYS are many times larger on a kid basis than MLS/GA.

On the boys side MLSN is the top league.

Boys clubs will want to play in the rec feeder league for MLSN (BY) over ECNL or USYS (SY).

See how this could blow up a lot of established norms?

These top leagues should have teams in both BY and SY divisions. Otherwise just switching to SY will slowly reverse RAE. This is a unique opportunity to minimize it and grow participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TRAPPED PLAYERS....

BY parents don’t care about trapped players because their kids are trapped so it’s not a problem for them. What is a problem is Q3/4 2010 joining with their Q1/2 2011s they are petrified of that for some reason.

I know the coach of the 2012 team at my son's club is salivating over possibility of having the Q3/4 2011s play for his team. I my son's cas that would mean him playing with current 7th graders instead of his actual 8th grade class, so that won't be happening.