Forum Index
»
Soccer
ECNL moving to school year not calendar
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
USYS not going to change things for fall 25. US soccer approval is last hope which they haven’t said no yet. That should be worth something. I’m not sure if ECNL can/will go full change without permission from USSF. |
Anonymous
Why would any country's soccer federation give a secondary league a change in registration year dates? |
Anonymous
One would imagine that the decline in youth soccer participation financially pinches these organizations (fewer players, less dollars to go around) all up and down youth soccer. https://www.soccerwire.com/soccer-blog/new-study-shows-negative-trend-in-youth-soccer-player-retention/ And then the declining youth population and projected declines piles on. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popproj/tables/2023/2023-summary-tables/np2023-t2.xlsx With the belief that school age is more likely to increase soccer participation, it is surprising that youth soccer hasn't reverted to school age already. MLS Next/NAL and ECNL are creating lower age groups for their leagues to keep the dollars flowing. |
Anonymous
That might be a valid reason for USSF and USYS, but it doesn’t make sense for ECNL. The whole “play with your schoolmates” argument is pretty flaccid for ECNL / MLSN / GA tbh. |
Anonymous
| Changes to the school year will increase the number of soccer players, ultimately benefiting ECNL down the pipeline. |
Anonymous
|
ECNL making the change to school year makes absolute sense. They are a college tracked league so having all their players segmented based on what the College coaches want to evaluate on makes perfect sense. No more, highlighting who is a 2025 vs a 2026 grad on a brochure. Coaches can watch the game and evaluate everyone playing knowing they are in his/her recruiting target.
Stop will the nonsense debate about biobanding, emails or not, this change will come and it actually makes sense. All the chatter about MLS Next is nonsense because the largest percentage of kids will stop playing at the end of highschool, the next group are going to play in college, and a very small sliver will go pro. So why punish the majority of youth players in the hopes that .0000001% of the players being scouted by a pro team is in a league grouped by birth year. |
Anonymous
I believe in certain circles this is referred to as propaganda |
Anonymous
Describe exactly how. Be specific. |
Anonymous
Why should US Soccer and Colleges twist themselves in knots about what ECNL parents want when their primary pool of male players are in MLS Clubs and MLS Next? |
Anonymous
People taking play-dates way too far 😆 |
Anonymous
Even if that is a real email from someone at ECNL. It doesn’t say anything is happening? Just that it’s a possibility. As of now it’s up in the air and if they haven’t made a decision by now my guess is probably no change anytime soon. |
Anonymous
My guess is they would not… but what do I know. |
Anonymous
ECNL players are spread out, even in this area with multiple teams. They don't go to the same schools. My DD doesn't have another player on her team at the same school. She won't have another player at her school on her team if they change to grade year. That's true for approximately 3/4 of her current teammates as well. It's the same situation for her friends and former teammates older and younger that now play ECNL. The argument to have everyone in the same graduating class play against each other and minimize the trapped player issue to make college recruiting a simpler process is a valid argument, it will just change where the RAE occurs. It will eliminate most trapped players, not RAE or ECNL participation. Arguing participation will increase at the ECNL level because someone gets to play with their school friends is silly because the change would be minimal, affecting possibly 1-2 kids per high school. That argument might fly at a youngest levels, maybe rec or the first few years of travel where there are more players in each small area, but its not a compelling reason for ECNL because it doesn't change anything about playing with your school friends. |
Anonymous
When exactly do you think is the cliff at which kids leave soccer? 5? 6? 10? Nope, it’s when kids and families have a choice of quit, play for fun (rec), play to compete (club), play to achieve dreams (try to go pro, etc). That happens at 12-15. That’s is where the cliff is. The top club rosters are limited. ECNL isn’t missing kids. The idea of some undiscovered Neo-Messi hiding out and just needs the right coach to come around at the right time and “invest” in this kid who doesn’t believe in him/herself, is a fantasy. 18 kids from a gross pool of a million vs 18 kids in a gross pool of 2 million is still 18 kids. The marginal local pool from which a U13 ECNL will choose from will go from 200 to 225 maybe at best if this fantasy of BY being the magical key that unlocks the flood gates of youth talent to stay in soccer. There isn’t a secret. Age brackets don’t change soccer. They don’t make it easier. They don’t recruit more kids. And age brackets certainly don’t ignite passion for the sport. You know what does? Families! |
Anonymous
The original podcast(s) pointed out that ECNL clubs do not want to provide special programming for trapped kids when their team is on a hiatus (or maybe even lose them to another sport) or shuffle kids around teams for trapped years which is allowed for a few players. While the potential age change can seem parent driven, the podcast gave the impression that it was club driven. |