ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

I'm glad your son has the option playing up to avoid being trapped.

[Anonymous]

ECNL needs to fix the trapped player issues ASAP, before 2026

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

[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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

[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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

at the younger ages we could actually do something to address RAE like not making everything competitive at 7 years old. Playing only for wins at the younger ages causes all the problems.

[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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

Maybe MLSN can allow the q1/2 players to bioband.

[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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

Nope not even close. I think BY is the way to go.

Just pointing out some possible outcomes that the ECNL girl cult parents aren't considering.

You think that you have this in the bag. However it's fairly obvious that US Soccer doesn't like ECNL. 2026 is a long way away and there's a very good chance that somehow ECNL gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.

[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: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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

at the younger ages we could actually do something to address RAE like not making everything competitive at 7 years old. Playing only for wins at the younger ages causes all the problems.

This is already available. It's called rec soccer and what you're describing is called participation trophies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

[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: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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

Nope not even close. I think BY is the way to go.

Just pointing out some possible outcomes that the ECNL girl cult parents aren't considering.

You think that you have this in the bag. However it's fairly obvious that US Soccer doesn't like ECNL. 2026 is a long way away and there's a very good chance that somehow ECNL gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.

How so?

[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: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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

Nope not even close. I think BY is the way to go.

Just pointing out some possible outcomes that the ECNL girl cult parents aren't considering.

You think that you have this in the bag. However it's fairly obvious that US Soccer doesn't like ECNL. 2026 is a long way away and there's a very good chance that somehow ECNL gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.

How so?

This person is deluded into thinking that US Soccer has some grand plan to bait and switch their youth organizations. The decision has been made, the "mandate" will officially be removed in a few months.

[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: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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

Nope not even close. I think BY is the way to go.

Just pointing out some possible outcomes that the ECNL girl cult parents aren't considering.

You think that you have this in the bag. However it's fairly obvious that US Soccer doesn't like ECNL. 2026 is a long way away and there's a very good chance that somehow ECNL gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.

How so?

It would take money to put a BY girls league above ECNL. MLSN can do it on the boys side because there's money. So, who provides the money to the system for girls to push up that league? NWSL? MLS? US Soccer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most ECNL rosters are packed with early month players so cutoffs did matter for many of them. Worry that college will not be in play for a bunch of them after a few years of SY cutoffs.

My daughter is the only Q4 player on her ECNL team. Everyone else is high school she is the only 8th grader. Our rival clubs in our area also have few if any Q3/4 players on their rosters.

Q4 has the fewest birthday as a quarter. That should not be surprising.

Q3 is a different story.

Are you trying to say Q4 underrepresentation is just a result of lower birth rates in those months? To the tune of approx 1 out of 16-18 on the team?!

2023 US Births:
Q1 (Jan-Mar) 24.2%
Q2 (Apr-Jun) 24.5%
Q3 (Jul-Sep) 26.1%
Q4 (Oct-Dec) 25.2%

Last third, approx the trapped group, Sep-Dec, 33.6%. The relative popularity of birth months is pretty steady from year to year. If anything, Q1/2 should be underrepresented if you're going by birthday popularity.

Instead of trying to favor one grouping over another, we should try to get the soccer powers that be a system that can minimize these effects. And if you're wondering, I have an older and a younger kid and seen the good/bad/ugly with the current BY system. If had my way, whatever changes would be implemented with the younger age groups first and implemented as they cycled through the system, because frankly it's already too late to impact the older ages other than forcing changes to their current teams/peer group that would cause more problems than solve. That said, I am sympathetic to the trapped situation and would favor adding options (but not wholesale change) for that situation.

[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: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?

You're making a solid argument for MLSN to go SY.

RAE effects under SY in rec/entry level travel soccer would align Q4 as the best players, making it tough for MLSN teams to find the best Q1 players (essentially the YNT problem that got everyone into this mess).

It would be cheaper/easier for them to go SY instead starting like what, 50-60 local rec leagues with BY cutoffs and they could cast a bigger net under SY.

at the younger ages we could actually do something to address RAE like not making everything competitive at 7 years old. Playing only for wins at the younger ages causes all the problems.

This is already available. It's called rec soccer and what you're describing is called participation trophies.

Yeah rec soccer is not the answer. Thinking winning at 7 means your kid is going pro. Is why we suck at soccer but carry on.

[Anonymous]

Between now and the start of Soccer year 26 teams will transition to SY. Are we we 12 months out? California just had some tryouts...