ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are a NorCal 2008 team I’ll let you do the research.

80% is a big stretch for Dr Anza’s 08 girls… it’s under 50% unless you count the winter basketball players

[Anonymous]

Are we not

[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: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.

How soon people forget DA + US Soccer trying to take over the youth market.

This is marathon not a sprint ECNL has played it's first card. US Soccer played a card of its own with a non-answer and push to 2026. There's more that will play out before all this is done.

[Anonymous]

We are 12 months form claifornia having tryouts for 26-27. Thats very soon in soccer world.

[Anonymous]

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

That’s not happening anytime soon so I would not plan on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are 12 months form claifornia having tryouts for 26-27. Thats very soon in soccer world.

US clubs plan should be out soon. But don’t expect major changes for Fall 25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That’s not happening anytime soon so I would not plan on it.

Thanks Momma Bear. Can you tell us your source or is it secret pillow talk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We are a NorCal 2008 team I’ll let you do the research.

80% is a big stretch for Dr Anza’s 08 girls… it’s under 50% unless you count the winter basketball players

Are you considering all the RL girls that also at practice? But yes didn’t think I needed to specify with playing winter sports or other high school sports in general. Point being majority don’t play year round soccer only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That’s not happening anytime soon so I would not plan on it.

The chance is very likely, since ECNL has not made any announcement yet, and the podcast gives a hint.

I would bet they are going to do some changes, possibly similar to MLS biobanding. This will solve some trapped players immediately and help smooth the transition.

[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?

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.

You can’t “reverse” RAE.

Why do you people keep posting about something you don’t understand!

[Anonymous]

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

Why? What is the difference between this year and next year? Or last year and this year?

The fix will come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That’s not happening anytime soon so I would not plan on it.

Thanks Momma Bear. Can you tell us your source or is it secret pillow talk?

No ECNL directors know it, otherwise you will hear rumor floating around.

If there is no change as DPL, ECNL would already announce 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: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.

This doesn’t make sense. It sounds like you’re just saying “SY rocks!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That’s not happening anytime soon so I would not plan on it.

The chance is very likely, since ECNL has not made any announcement yet, and the podcast gives a hint.

I would bet they are going to do some changes, possibly similar to MLS biobanding. This will solve some trapped players immediately and help smooth the transition.

Very unlikely it’s major changes. My clubs director has not heard anything from ECNL admins about what the plan is they are just going on business as usual until Fall 26.

[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.

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

It is already happening! My son has to fight over a kid who is 18 months older than him. I will jump ship to ECNL to avoid this nonsense!